document resume - eric · document resume ed 129 589 se 021 241 authop lutz, francis c.; and others...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 129 589 SE 021 241
AUTHOP Lutz, Francis C.; And OthersTTTTF A Guide to Off-Campus Student Project Cnter
Operations. A Manual Based Upon the Model ProjectCenter of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester,Massachusetts. Project Report No. 2.
INSTITUTICN Worcester Polytechnic Inst., Mass.SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Directorate for Science Education.PUB DATE Dec 75GRANT NSF-GY-9353NOTE 99p.; For related documents, see 5E021240-242
EDRS PRICE 1F-$0.83 BC-$4.67 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS College Science; *Curriculum Development; Educational
Alternatives; Educational Programs; *EngineeringEducation; *Field Experience Programs; *HigherEducation; Program Guides; Science Education;*Student Projects; *Undergraduate Study
IDENTIFIERS *Worcester Polytechnic Institute
ABSTRACTUnder a 1972 grant from the National Science
Foundation's College Science Improvement Program (CoSIP), WorcesterPolytechnic Institute (WPI) undertook a major educational experimentinvolving the total reorientation of its educational programs. Theencompassing effort is referred to as the WPI PLAN. A major facet ofthe WPI PLAN involves student project work in off-campus settings,with an emphasis on independent study of real-life problems involvingthe interaction of technology with society. This manual describes thedevelopment and operation of one of WPI's off-campus educationalproject centers for such activities located in Washington, D.C. Theoperation of the center, including the definition of programobjectives and the program's development, implementation, andevaluation, are presented. Guidelines are indicated for financing anoff-campus center. As the concept of the off-campus educationalcenter is considered transferable to other institutions, this guideis intended to facilitate the adoption of those elements of the WPTcenter applicable to the majority of postsecondary institutions.(BT)
***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished
* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality* of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes availuble* via the ERIC Document Peproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.***********************************************************************
C7NU S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTU
EDUCATiON & WE.LFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION
CNI
I41.
uf PUI'N'
A GUIDE TO OFF-CAMPUSSTUDENT PROJECT CENTER
OPERATIONS
Project Report No. 2
Report prepared for
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION
Restructuring the Undergraduate Learning Environment
Under Grant Number GY-9353
2
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
3
AUG u :1 iy/6
A GUIDE TO OFF-CAMPUSSTUDENT PROJECT CENTER
OPERATIONS
A Manual Based Upon the Model Project Centerof Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Massachusetts
Project Report No. 2
Prof. FRANCIS C. LUTZ, DirectorProf. JAMES S. DEMETRYProf. ALLEN H. HOFFMANProf. CALTON W. STAPLESProf. STANLEY D. WEINRICHMr. JOSEPH J. MIELINSKI, JR.
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INTITUTEWorcester, MA. 01609
December 1975
Report prepared for
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION
Restructuring the Undergraduate Learning Environment
Under Grant Number GY-9353
ABSTRACT
During the 1974-75 Academic Year, Worcester Polytechnic Instituteopened an off-campus, educational project center in Washington, D.C.
An on-site director, supported by an on-campus administrator,and assisted by four other faculty members, staffed the center duringits first year of operation. Sixty-six undergraduate students com-pleted educational projects for academic credit, in cooperation withfourteen Washington-based organizations.
The operation of the center, including the definition of programobjectives, and the program's development, implementation, and follow-up are presented. Guidelines are indicated for financing an off-campus center.
As the concept of an off-campus educational center is highlytransferable to other institutions, this Guide is intended to facili-tate the adoption of those elements of the WPI center applicable tothe majority of postsecondary institutions.
FO R EW 0 RD
The National Scirm:e Foundation's 1) irectorate for scieni:e F:ducathrough its progrilln, Restructoring the I ffilergraduide Learning 1;nivironment(RI is support ing a limited number of projects at institut bins that areundertak ing major clumgcs in their undergraduate instruct iroal programs inthe sciences. In T,\ lay 1972, ( :rant iY-9353, the protolpve award for thisprogram, was made to Worcester Polytechnic institute, Worcester,Massachusetts. The purpose of this document is to transmit to the public oneof the products of that project.
The Foundation's purpose in RI III, is to enconrage ciaieges nobuniversities iind their science faculties in the development, testing, imdevaluation of new or unconventional approaches to the organization.management, delivery, and or content of undergraduate science education.Awards under MILE for projects which are comprehensive or institutional inscope, are based on the presumption that sonic of the problems confront inghist itut ions of higher learning require a systematic, rather than fragmentedapproach. Projects vhich are directed at altering the basic structures ofscience programs and which are determined to have the greatest potential forincreasing nationally the diversity of inst it ut ional set ings for science receivepriority in consideration for support.
The objectives of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's restructuringproject, for vhich NSF and other agencies both public and private haveprovided support, are summarized by the institution in its original proposalas follows:
Worcester Polytechnic Institute following two and one halfyears of intensive study and planning, has developed and begun theimplementation of a PLAN for a new and comprehensively differenteducational program, responsive to the needs of individualstudents, responsive to the needs of society, and encouragingsensitivity to the ideas and values of civilization. The PLANinvolves a complete change in every aspect of campus activities,affecting every member of the faculty, every student, and everyadministrator.
Since this major educational enterprise, involving totalreorientation of an entire college, will require significant invest-ment over the next several years, WPI now requests the assistanceof the National Science Foundation and the National Endowmentfor Humanities, in developing itself as a model college, featuring:1.Degree requirements measuring the achievement of competencerather than accumulation of academic credits. 2. Individualfreedom in the planning of the educational process rather than arigid prescribed curriculum. 3. A large component of self-initiatedinvestigation rather than passive classroom participation. 4. Newinstructional methods emphasizing education as a cooperativeventure between students and faculty, rather than the morefrequent relationship of mutual antagor ism.
The PL.\ N einphinzes programs with concent rat ion ui scienceor engineering, containing a unique prescript ion for the integrationol the humanities into tli ,! total edin:ational experience, midprograms with concentration ill humanities or social sciencerequiring demonstratiim of significant competence in science andengineering,
WPI is now totally committed to an innovative model programWill not only demonstrate the educational effectiveness and
f iiumcnd feasihility of a new approach to scientific, technologicaland humanistic education, but will also iuld to the nationalexperience in methodology of affecting major reform in establishedinstitut ions of higher learning.
The Foundat ion's intentions in awarding this grant were to assist WPI inimplementing its plan for total restructuring of its undergraduate program inthe sciences, to help insure that the r!sultant project could be observed andstudied as a model, and to provide to all interested parties some insight intothe process of institutional change.
A major facet of the WPI PLAN invol es student project work in off-campus settings, with an emphasis on independent study of real-life problemsinvolving the interaction of technology with society. This manual describesthe development and operation of one of WPI's centers for such activities,located in Washington, D.C. It is my belief that this document may serve as asignificant resource to persons concerned with the Nation's higher education,in particular undergraduate science education.
Robert F. WatsonCoordinatorEducational Program RestructuringNational Science Foundation
vi
PREFACE
This manual was prepared by those members of the WPI communitywho were directly responsible for the first year of operation of theWashington D.C. Project Center:
Prof. Francis C. Lutz, Center DirectorMr. Joseph J. Mielinski, Projects AdminitratorProf. James S. Demetry, Director of the Division of Interdisci-
plinary Affairs, and Department ofElectrical Engineering
Prof. Allen H. Hoffman, Department of Mechanical EngineeringProf. Carlton W. Staples, Department of Mechanical EngineeringProf. Stanley D. Weinrich, Department of Chemical EngineeringProf. William R. Grogan, Dean of Undergraduate Studies
During this period, the operation of the center was assisted bythe College Science Improvement Programs of the National ScienceFoundation, the Alfred P. Sloane Foundation, the Polaroid Corporation,and the National Institute of Education in the U. S. Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare.
The preparation of this document was funded by the NationalScience Foundation's Restructuring Undergraduate Learning ExperiencesDivision.
8
vii
CONTENTS
I. Introduction1
Orientation 1
The WPI PLAN1
Scope of Manual 3
II. DEFINITION OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 6Educational Objectives 6Faculty Development Objectives 7
Administrative and Financial Objectives 8Cooperating Organization Objectives 14Students Selection Objectives 15
III. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 17General 17Site Selection 17Selection of Cooperating Organizations 18Developing Cooperating Organizations 22Student Selection and Preparation 26Faculty Selection and Preparation 32
IV. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 34Participant InteractionScheduling 38Final Report Guidelines 41Maintaining Academic Standards 42
V. PROGRAM EVALUATION 43Achieving Program Objectives 43Documentation 43Evaluation of Faculty Development Objectives
Achievement 43Evaluation of Administrative and Financial
Objectives Achievement 44Evaluation of Student Objectives 47Evaluation of Organizational Objectives Achievement 49Evaluation of Educational Objectives Achievement 50
ix
9
CONTENTS
VI. FINANCING AN OFF-CAMPUS EDUCATIONAL CENTER 52
Program Cost 52
Functional Budget 52
First Year Operation 53
Second Year Operation 56
APPENDICESA. COMPLETED PROJECTSB. FINAL REPORT GUIDELINES
10
I. INIRODUL1ION
Orientation
Under a 1972 grant from the National Science Foundation'sCollege Science Improvement Programs (CoSIP), Worcester PolytechnicInstitute, a privately endowed college of science and engineeringfocusing mainly on undergraduate education, undertook a major educa-tional experiment involving the total reorientation of its educationalprograms. The encompassing effort is referred to as the WPI PLAN.
Because one of the prime objectives of this reorientation was thedevelopment of a student project structure that would provide theopportunity for new learning experiences, several off-campus projectcenters were established. Among these is the Washington D.C. ProjectCenter, opened in September of 1974. Due to its uniqueness asWorcester Polytechnic Institute's only resident center, its demon-strated potential for high quality undergraduate learning, and itspotential for reproduciability by other colleges, the planning for,and operation of, the Washington D.C. Project Center is documentedin this manual.
A brief description of Worcester Polytechnic Institute's educa-tional prog,am is presented to acquaint the reader with the overallcontext in which the center operates. It should be noted, however,that the concepts implemented through the Washington Center areapplicable by a variety of postsecondary institutions whose educa-tional programs greatly differ from those of Worcester PolytechnicInstitute.
The WPI PLAN
Since the original NSF CoSIP award of $733,000 in 1972, Worce:;terPolytechnic Institute has been redirecting its undergraduate scienceand engineering programs toward a direct responsiveness both to theneeds of the individual student and to the needs of society.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the PLAN is the granting tothe student of the responsibility for developing, with faculty guidance,an individualized academic program. The degree is awarded upon demon-strated competence through projects, tutorials, independent study, andan examination of competence.
Salient aspects of the PLAN include:
1. degree requirements measuring the achievement cf competencerather than the traditional accumulation of academic credits;
1
1 I.
individual freedom in the planning of thy yducafional pro-cess, rather than a rigid, precrihed curriculum;
. a large component of self-initiated invetigation rathyrthan passive classroom participation; and
4. new instructional methods emphasizing education d 1
cooperative venture between students and faculty.
The new degree requirements demand of the student d de 'on-sf,raLion of competency by:
I. successful completion of a competency examination in themajor field;successful completion of one qualifying project in themajor field of study, (the MAJOR QUALIFYING PROJECT or MQP);
3. successful completion of one qualifying project e Impaa-sizirg interactions among technology, society and humanneeas, (the INTERACTIVE QUALIFYING PROJECT or IQP); and
4 establishment of a sufficiency in a minor area (humanitiesfor engineering or science majors, science/engineering forhumanities majors).
Thus, of only four degree requirements, two specifically iden-tify project activity. Administratively, the provision of meaning-ful educational opportunities to complete the MQP requirement isrelatively straightforward. Indeed, engineering and science facultytraditionally have a wealth of experience in such activities. Imple-mentation of programs to provide opportunities of similar rigor tomeet the IQP requirement is comparatively much more difficult.While both types of projects have been completed at the WashingtonCenter, its prime function is to provide IQP opportunities.
The Interactive Qualifying Project
The interactive project is a broad and integrative educationalexperience. It aims to make the student sensitive to generalsocial problems, able to question, criticize or reinforce prevailingethics and value concepts, aware of societal-humanistic-technologicalinteractions, able to analyze these interactions and to make betterjudgements and policy recommendations on issues that affect society.
IQP:The following educational goals have been established for the
1. to create an awareness of socially-related technologicalinteractions;
2. to enable the identification of socio-technological systems,subsystems, and the linkages between them;
3. to cultivate the habit of questioning social values andstructures;
4. to develop and integrate the skills of evaluation and ana-
2
lysis in the societal, humanistic, and technological dis-ciplines
5. to provide methods for assessing the impact of technologyon society, and human welfare, and the impact of socialsystems on technological developments; and
6. to encourage the recommendation of policy.(1)
The Washington D. C. Project Center
Preparation for an off-campus project center to provide IQPopportunities that would meet the above objectives, was begun in the1972-73 academic year. In the following year, Washington D.C. wasselected as the site for the center. A special preparation coursefor the students was organized on campus in the Spring of 1974. Thiscourse, given to all students preparing for activity at the center,requires each project team to develop a complete project proposalbefore the project can be initiated. In September 1974, the Centerwent into full operation. By June 1975, a total of twenty-eightqualifying projects were completed in cooperation with fourteenWashington-based organizations by a total of sixty-six students.
Appendix A contains an abstract of each project completed atthe center, as well as the names of the organization that cooperatedin its implementation, the names, majors and years of graduation ofthe students and the names of the faculty advisors.
Scope of Manual
This report is divided into presentations of the experiencesassociated with program development, implementation and follow-up.Figure 1 depicts the time-frame of each of these three phases inrelation to the time of writing of this report. While the reportis limited to a discussion of events in the first year of operation,for continuity, Figure 1 includes both the first year-and-a-halfproof-of-concept stage and the first year of what will be steacy-state operation (the 1977-1978 Academic year).
The half-year interim period between the proof-of-concept phaseand the steady-state phase is felt necessary for the completion ofan adequate evaluation, feedback and planning process.
Figure 2 presents the responsible parties for carrying out eachtask in the development, implementation and follow-up stages foreach of the first three years of the center. As such it serves as asynopsis of the activities discussed in the remaining chapters.
(1) "The Interactive Qualifying Project", a Worcester PolytechnicInstitute Faculty Committee Report (1972), Prof. Imre Zwiebel,Chairman.
.1 3
3
ACTIVITY
CALENDER MONTHS
01
03
05
07
09
11
01
03
05
07
09
11
01
03
05
07
09
11
01
03
05
02
04
06
08
10
12
02
04
06
08
10
12
02
04
06
08
e2
12
e,
I.
DEVELOPMENT
1.Definition of Objec-
tives
1 ,
1
ii-
-i----i
1I
1111111111111111
2.Development of func-
tional budget
UIII um __ii
I1
;
1 UNUIII
q,cis
Selection Of
PU
pa E2,7
II
si , L
an WI
1111
111
_4
MO
M3.Site
4.Faculty-Administrator
li,
.EIMIIMI
5.Cooperating Organi-
zation
c-is
-,...
-IT x.
-...
=4.,ts,;
_i_
.i
MO U
UEAMII
"Tin
&I
6.Project Tosics
_7.S.tudents
8.Housing
9.Fundin9
4-14:s,-
muIN
- 4
ks.,
ill
illa
MI
In
IIIII
.-
vrT
t?.
4.0 r:4,
L:
qt1
-14
EOM Eau
7,
,
rilii
iiM11
1101
1111
1111
111
9,
10.Student Preparation
-11.Student
Prososal
12.Pre-Implementation
WO
IIIIM
EM
EM
II
-,E
igtE 11
1111
1111
MI
IMPLEMENTATION
13.Project Ir?lementa-
tion
FOLLOW-UP
14.Gradins
,V
.ei::
.1,
-'"K
Omaimg
.
IIIMEW
!Rill.
Mt
.
rol
--n
-15.Eva1 uation
16.Documentation
PAV
Oil.
Atil
.
Time of Present Report:
Figure 1.
Time frame for the Washington D
C. Project Center Program
ACTIVITY
Center
Director
Academic
Dean
Projects
Adminis-
trator
Organi-
zation
Liaison
Faculty
Advisors
Preparation
Course
Teacher
Students
Year
12
31
23
12
31
23
12
31
2i
31
23
DEVELOPMENT
1.0efinition of Objec-
tives
2.Development of func-
tional budget
Xx
xXXXXXX
Selection Of
3.Site
XX
4.Faculty-Administrator
X
5.Cooperating Organi-
zation
_
XX
xX
XX
6.Project Topics
XX
XXXXXX
7.Students
xx
X8.Housing
XX
X_
9.Funding
XX
X.
XXXXXX
10.Stuc:ent Preparation
XX
XXXXXXXX
11.Student Pro
osal
xx
XX
Xx
x X
X X
XXCXX X
X12.Pre-Imp ementation
IMPLEMENTATION
13.Project Implementa-
tion
FOLLOW-UP
14.Grading
15.Evaluation
16.Documentation
XX
xX
XX
X
Figure 2.
Definition of Program Task Responsibilities
II. DEFINITION OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The first step in establishing an off-campus project center isthe definition of its purposes. A working definition requiresexplicit development of:
1. the educational objectives of the academic functionsbeing performed,
2. the professional development objectives of the facultyresponsible for the academic implementation of the program,
3. the administrative and financial objectives of an off-campuscenter,
4. the portion of the student body to be served, its collectivecareer objectives, and its educational needs, and
5. the objectives of the organizations cooperating in theprogram.
Educational Objectives
As stated earlier, the primary purpose of the center is toprovide opportunities for the completion of lnte!.active QualifyingProjects. While the Zwiebel Report (1) established the general educa-tional objectives for all IQP's, it was felt that an off-campus projectcenter could be administered more effectively if the educational ob-jectives were more specific. If: addition to the general IQP objectives,the following objectives were developed to provide an operational frame-work for the faculty advisors at the center.
The application of technical/scientific knowledge, and arecognition of its restrictions and limitations.
J application of social science knowledge.,e acquisition, review and interpretation of new knowledge
(new to the student)4. The analysis of policy options (not the recommendation of
policy).5. The acceptance of professional-level responsibilities.6. The creation of a problem-solving methodology or the
combination of methodologies.The definition and decomposition of complex problems in asystem context.
3. The development of interpersonal skills.9. The development and demonstration of written and oral
communicative skills.10. The interpretation of organizational functioning.
Such objectives are obviously faculty derived. The interpretationof the relative significance of each and thus its attainment is pri-marily a faculty decision, made in light of the specific background ofthe faculty member, the individual student, and the cooperating organi-zation.
Often, the most valuable of the achieved objectives are those
i 6
6
which are least externally measureable and perceptible to the student.He or she has almost unknowingly acquireinew found skills, new talent,sr -confidence and maturity, for which a direct source of acquisitionis unattributable.
Faculty Development Objectives
There is one vital aspect to an off-campus project center. If itis to succeed, the faculty members responsible for its academic achiev-ments must be at the center. To the typical faculty member, that hasseveral drawbacks; such as separation from his department, his associates.his research, his consulting, and his students. While this separationis relatively short in length, and not absolute by any means, it isnevertheless, quite real.
As compensating factors, an off-campus program should be capableof providing opportunities for its faculty to develop new associates,new research, new consulting. If these opportunities for expansionof professional experiences are not available, it can be safelyassumed that faculty would not continue to participate in the program.
The center should also provide a meaningful experience in theacademic development of the faculty member. The blend of projecttopics and the cooperating organizations should offer a complementof investigations and contacts both in and out of the teacher'sspecific discipline. The projects would thus offer the opportunityto develop a working knowledge and data-base for related projectactivities upon return to the campus.
A variety of topics, while demanding on faculty time, alsooffers the advantage of identifying new research or consultingactivities, and personal exposure to the organizations directlyresponsible for contracting such work. In this sense, exposure tothe goals and objectives of the cooperating organizations is one ofthe most rewarding experiences associated with off-campus activity.
An off-campus project center, while appearing to be a disadvan-tage from the one point of view, is also advantageous from another.To the degree that the faculty are separated from their other respon-sibilities, an essentially full-time effort can be devoted to projectadvising. Such an opportunity to be free of classroom teaching andcommittee assignments is quite rare. It allows concentration on theteaching skills necessary for excellence in project advising, andalso allows the simultaneous feedback of trying several differentadvising approaches on a variety of topics.
Another aspect of the center's operation that directly relatesto faculty development is the concept of co-advising, two facultymembers working together on each project topic. Such an arrangement
1 7
7
is the most fruitful exercise that the faculty encounter. It fostersdebate, exposure to the detailed analysis of a colleague, and the ex-change of teaching techniques.
Finally, no academic work load should be considered as a 24-hour,7-day-per-week assignment. An off-campus experience affords facultythe opportunity to participate in a broad range of new social andcultural activities during his free time. Washington, D. C., as thesite for the center, offers countless museums, theatres and places ofboth historical and national interest to the participating facultyand students.
Administrative and Financial Objectives
The fact that two faculty members are to co-advise projectsestablishes the minimum number of students that can participate inthe program. The work load of two full-time-equivalent-faculty(FTEF) becomes the basic administrative unit. As a rough guide,two FTEF would correspond to a range of fifteen to twenty-fivestudents working full-time in project groups of two or three.Larger programs would be accomodated in multiples of these units.
in the first year of operation, essentially a proof-of-conceptperiod, the smallest potentially successful academic unit is appro-priately advised by two faculty members. In the operation of theWashington Center, one faculty member, the Director, was on-site forthe entire academic year. The second faculty advisor, was rotatedeach academic term.(2) Thus a total of five faculty were involvedin the center's operation. Administrative support of these facultywas provided by a Projects Administrator on campus, who has the re-sponsibility for supporting the project activities of the entireinstitute.
There are nine administrative and financial functions which canbe tested by an off-campus project center dealing with interdisci-plinary problem-solving. With specific reference to the WashingtonCenter, these objectives can be presented by nine questions.
1. In regard to the implementation of the school's educationalobjectives, what progress has been made?
2. Can an intensive effort be made to focus campus attention oninterdisciplinary activities at the societal-technologicalinterface?
(21 WPI's academic year is divided into four terms of seven weeksduration. The equivalent of three courses in a term is astudent's full load, or one student-unit.
8
1 8
3. Are the faculty able to advise students in an interdiscipli-nary problem environment while separated from the campus?
4. Are students capable of achieving academic goals withoutaccess to on-campus resouces?
5. Are the peer review systems of promotion and tenure capableof recognizing faculty accomplishments in this area?
6. Is the impact of the school's new visibility through theprogram beneficial?
7. Can a budgetary process be devised to allow the flexibilityrequired to function, and the accountability required toestablish, a separate and distinct operation?
8. Can a center exist outside of the normal matrix organiza-tional structure to better respond to interdisciplinaryaffairs?
9. What will be the impact of returning students and facultyon the campus?
Each of the above questions are discussed in the following section.It should, however, be obvious to the reader that some of the questionsare extremely difficult to answer, and it may be several years before anadenHate response can actually be provided. Approaches to the answersa -esented in Chapter V.
1. In regard to the implementation of the school's educationalobjectives, what progress has been made?
In establishing Interactive Qualifying Projects as an educationalvehicle, WPI has embarked upon a new educational pathway. The resultsand benefits may not be readily discernable within the product, itsstudents, for several years. Particularly in the on-campus environment,it becomes exceedingly difficult to stand back, examine and evaluate theresults and progress which have been made. An off-campus project centeraffords an excellent opportunity for assessment of innovative educationalprocesses. It brings students in close contact with external assessers,who, being separated from the host school, can more readily measure,evaluate and compare the process to more familiar ones. Whether thisevaluation is done formally or merely through day-to-day contacts withthe faculty advisors, it serves to provide very valuable and meaningfulexternal feedback to the college and its educational planners.
2. Can an intensive effort be made to focus campus attention onproject activities at the societal-technological interface?
Informal discussions between center advisors and their colleagues,as well as more formal meetings, such as a Project Management FacultyConference, provide the opportunity to reflect on the relativeeffectiveness of project methodologies, and to assess and share theresults of these efforts.
9
1 9
One of the documentary elements of the PLAN is the maintenanceof all qualifying project reports in the school library. Anothercomplete set of all the Washington Center's final report" are main-tained in the offices of the campus Project Office.(7,) Ths, allWashington reports are quite easily accPssible to both the facultyand the student body.
3. Are the faculty able to advise students in an interdiscipli-nary problem environment while separate from their colleagues?
A crucial question to the implementation of a total education intechnological schools is whether or not engineering faculty caneffectively teach students anything worthwhile other than the work-ings of their own disciplines. It would be somewhat hypccritical toproclaim the need for engineering and science students to exrlorethe socio-technological interface, and send them solely to sucialscience faculty for that experience. In an on-campus setting, theproblem is not as severe because faculty have the ability to seekeach other out for ass'stance.
4. Are students capable of achieving academic goals withoutaccess to on-campus resources?
With a student selection process that is fairly open in termsof past academic achievement, the opportunity is presented todetermine if the existing student body can achieve the educationalgoals set out for it by the inst'tution.
The capabilities of a student with an inferior academic recordare challenged at an off-campus center to a greater extent becauseof the isolation of the effort.
Denial of access to on-campus resources may often be found tobe more than off-set by the resources provided by cooperatingorganizations. This. coupled with intensive efforts on the parts ofboth faculty and students may readily tend to produce a level ofacademic quality superior to that normally provided on campus.
5. Are the peer review systems of promotion and terure capableof recognizing the faculty accomplishments in this area?
While this question will not be put to the test until thepassage of one or two more academic years, it is an area that re-quires some thought. As faculty at engineering and science schools
T1 The Projects Office is an administrative support .,'-ruyuire tofaculty and students in the implementation of project activitieswith off-campus organizations, as well as for on-campus projects.
10
are typically conservative, appropriate recognition of colleagues'efforts in innovative areas may be difficult to grant. Accordingly,there is a clear need for the Program Director to document the teach-ing and creative scholarship contributions of the program's faculty.
This fact presents a logistic problem to the Director, If hecontinuously requests letters of opinion on the teaching ability andlevel of performance of the faculty f).om the organization liaison,he must sacrifice asking for letters of evaluation of the program,the students and the final reports. In the first year of operation,obtaining honest evaluation of any aspect of the program, includingits faculty, is hindered by the self-imposed limitation on liaisontime devoted to a new effort.
As it is virtually impossible for peer review groups to recog-nize faculty contributions with no informative input into theirdecision-making process, the soundest recourse is for the Directorto insure that both the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the Deanof Faculty are directly exposed to the program's operation and tothe faculty's performance at various stages of implementation.
6. Is the impact of the school's new visibility through theprogram beneficial?
Exposure of faculty to a number of diverse Federal agenciespotentially benefits the research efforts of the institution and thefaculty themselves. It may provide an educational process to facultyon the workings, needs and goals of Washington-based research sponsor-ing organizations.
In addition, alumni in the vicinity of the Center are affordedthe unique opportunity to meet, and perhaps worL with, the studentsand faculty of their alma mater. If nothing else, an off-campuscenter virtually assures that alumni will become more familiar withthe educational objectives of their college.
7. Can a budgetary process be devised to allow the flexibilityrequired to function, and the accountability required to establish,a separate and distinct operation?
A difficulty exists in financing programs similar to th,. Washing-ton D. C. Project Center. On the one hand, the most logical sourcesof income are the individual organizations cooperating in the program.On the other hand, this type of funding does not provide sufficientfront-end funds to adequately plan the program before the actualinitiation of projects. As a result, funding by cooperating organi-zations cannot, of itself, maintain an off-campus center. Incomefrom student tuition commensurate with the level of student enroll-ment in the center is required. Where institutions have establishedcost centers of other types, the budgetary format would be similar.
11
r.
A cost center concept with separate and distinguishable income andexpenditure accounts, is the most plausible means of operating anoff-campus center. It offers the accountability needed for severalincome sources, and establishes the necessary degree of managerialauthority and responsibility.
8. Can a center exist outside of the normal matrix organizationalstructure to better respond to interdisciplinary affairs?
The normal drives of a typical academic department are to:a. maintain an academic strength in a particular discipline,b. maximize its irternal political influence in relation to
other departments.c. champion the significance of the discipline,d. increase the quality and quantity of its staff, ande. obtain financial support for those operations which meet
the disciplinary objectives of the department.
Because an off-campus interdisciplinary project center could beinterpreted as a competing influence within a departmental system,it would be reasonable to assume that most departmental organizationswould be somewhat opposed to its establishment.
9. What will be the impact of returning students and faculty onthe campus?
The impact of returning students and faculty on the campus willdepend on several conditions, which follow.
a. The number of juniors in the program.b. The concentrations of past participants in campus housing.c. The propensity of the participants to write of their experi-
ences in campus publications.d. The number of activities which cause past participants to
gather as a group.e. The level of faculty interaction with other interested
faculty on an informal basis.f. The number of students provided academic program advice by
the returning faculty.g. General publicity through campus public relations about the
center.h. Novelty items which identify wiuh the center.i. The attitude of the returning students and faculty.
a. Juniors in the program are significant because they are normallymoving into the leadership position of the student body in the secondhalf of the junior year, just after returning. They also will be on thecampus for the entire next academic year.
b. The concentration of past participants in campus housing is veryimportant. Several students living in a fraternity, for example, recounting
12
2 2
their experiences in the presence of other students, will provide oneof the most important factors in attracting other students to the pro-gram. Returning students have demonstrated a much keener interest inpolitics on the national level. They tend more to watch national,political addresses and discuss newspaper articles of national import-ance.
If the students are too dispersed they will not be able tointeract in the above ways.
c. Several students have written articles for the campus news-paper. These are quite important in creating and maintaining anawareness of the center within the student body. The articles havebeen candid and positive. Unfortunately, not all students have con-tributed their views in this way.
d. Group gatherings such as wine and cheese parties, evaluationmeetings, and discussions with next year's candidates all help to main-tain a sense of involvement and excitement. Two to four such activitiesof a variety of formats are usually possible in the fourteen-week periodfollowing return.
e. Faculty interactions and discussions in the coffee lounge, atmeetings, and at social gatherings result in a high level of interest onthe part of those who have not participated.
f. Faculty advising students and enthusastically recommendingthe center to advisees will have a significant impact on student in-terest and awareness.
g. The Public Relations office can write about the activities foralumni and students alike. The information sent to parents creates asense of pride in belonging to an organization with this type of highlyvisible activity.
h. The first-year students returned witn a shirt on which theyhad designed a Washington D. C. Project Cente,
i. Many students have developed a sense of inner pride simply be-cause they belong to WPI a college with a Washington Project Center.This feeling has helped to generate pride and involvement on the partof the students in the college.
Student Selection Objectives
The Interactive Qualifying Project is very strongly recommended forall students. In essenr,e, then, the entire student body is availablefor selection to the Center.
There are several possible classifications for reducing the availabili
13
2 3
of the program to the student body at-large. For example, the programcould be opened to only thoe students who meet one or more of thefollowing criteria:
1. students who have completed at least two or three years of theiracademic program, i.e., upperclassmen;
2. students who have distinguished themselves by maintaining anacademic record at some level above the average of theirclassmates, i.e., an honors program; or,
3. students who have previously demonstrated their ability toperform well in project efforts.
Such classifications are useful if the decision is made that thefinancial burden of a large off-campus center is not feasible. In theoperation of the Washington Center, no such pre-determined criteriafor student selection was employed, although the program was primarilyaimed at upperclassmen for two reasons. First, the beginning of anew program not favoring upperclassmen would mean that those studentsin their senior year would not have a second opportunity to participateif an underclassman participated in their place. Second, it was gen-erally felt that, again, because of the newness of the program, upper-classmen would be better suited to facing the unexpected than theiryounger peers.
In place of pre-determined criteria, all students were notified ofthe opportunity to apply for a position at the center. Students whoapplied were then individually screened, so that the total numberattending would be within the range determined by the administrativeand financial constraints of the first year's operation.
The selection of students for participation in an off-campus ProjectCenter necessitates balance between many conflicting objectives. Fromthe viewpoint of assuring highest quality project performance to the spon-soring agencies, one would tend to select students with superior academicperformance, who posess exceptional oral and communicative skills, andhave gained prior on-campus project experience. Conversely, from the viewpoint of educational objectives, one may argue that such a superior studenwould gain only marginally, and that less academically exceptional studentshould be selected, for whom the incremental educational gains would be fagreater.
Indeed, an off-campus project offers a rare opportunity for virtuallyall types of students. The exception would be a student not prepared forthe emotional dilemmas of living and working with his peers, in an environment with performance pressures similar to those encountered in one'sfirst professional appointment. If personal problems or family pressuresare bothering a student, they seem to be intensified during what becomesa very long academic term.
As all students enter into qualifying projects for the purpose ofsatisfying degree requirements, the decision to participate in the
14
2 4
Washington Project Center is motivated by one or more of the objectivelisted below.
1. More interesting Projects with Better Logistical Support.The opportunity to provide input, in the form of a working document, t(a well-known functioning agency on a topic of current concern, has con-siderable student appeal. The organizations associated with the Wash-ington Project Center provide better logistical support for the pro-jects than would normally be available on any campus, both in terms ofdata availability and clerical support.
2. Opportunity for a Concentrated In-Depth Study. The oppor-tunity exists to devote a 100 percent effort to the project, and tocomplete it within one term. Students have also genetally recog-nized the higher potential to produce a quality repor-,. by coming tothe Washington Project Center.
3. Pre-Job Experience. The opportunity to function in a highlevel organization at an almost professional level provides valuableexperience. Students are potentially motivated by being able to re-ference this experience when seeking permanent employment.
4. Improved Skills. The center offers greater opportunity fordirect improvement of interpersonal skills. These include improvedability to accept new situations, improved oral ability, and im-proved abilities in project scheduling and meeting deadlines. Thecenter experience is viewed as challenging, and, due to its shortintensive nature, can bring about a quantum change in a student'sability to accept responsibilities.
5. The Social Experience of Living and Working in Washington.
S. Close Faculty Contact. The nature of the project center op-eration allows closer faculty contact in a more neutral setting than isavailable on campus.
Cooperating Organization Objectives
Cooperating organizations have aenerally been quick to realize thedistinct educational benefits of students addressing real life problems
The following are some of the objectives organizations seek toachieve by participating in the program.
1. A student group provides a valuable resource in termsof aresearch team. By properly defining the problem, the agency can re-ceive a report which can be utilized as supporting material in anon-going or up-coming study.
1 5
2. A professional satisfaction results from participating inthe educational process.
3. The program offers the opportunity for close contact withfaculty members, thus providing a different and valuable perspectiveof agency problems.
4. There is a distinct advantage to participating in a programwhich has projects on similar topics in several different organiza-tions. A broad-baseu insight into how different groups are dealingwith a similar problem can be provided.
5. Most organizations devote some portion of their resourcesto recruitment of recent graduates for employment.The center affords this opportunity both to the organization and toits own students.
16
III. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
General
Once the program's objectives are clearly defined, several tasksneed to be accomplished prior to the actual implementation of off-campus projects. The following sections present the most significantpre-implementation steps needed to insure some level of success in theprogram.
Site Selection
The selection of a site for an off-campus center is the first stepfollowing the definition of the program's objectives. In the presentcase, the ultimate choice was Washington, D. C., for reasons presentedbelow.
In attempting to achieve the educational objectives of QualifyingProjects as presented earlier, several types of projects are possible.
1 The problem-solving type, in which the student applies analy-tical techniques to available data in order to select and rec-ommend possible courses of action.
2 The advocacy planning type, in which the student advocatessocial change and develops the means for resolving certaindisparities or inequities in society.
0J. The experiential field-work type, in which the student parti-
cipates in community activities, and works with public orprivate organizations, to gain experience which would enablehim to meet the stated Interactive Qualifying Project objectives.
4. The theoretical type, in which the student develops a newmodel, or extends existing models, for analysis and predic-tion of interactive effects.
5. The historical-study type, in which the student traces theantecedents of societal, humanistic, philosophical, or artis-tic phenomena in interaction with technological, scientificdevelopments, and places them in perspective.
6. The technological assessment type, in which the student gaugesand evaluates the impact of some existing or proposed techno-logical development on society and human values.
To provide the flexibility for accomodating all these project types,the center site must have access to a variety of organizations. It
should be noted that University Urban Research Centers of the late 1960'susually provided opportunities in only type 3 projects, and few are ableto claim a large degree of success.
Providing project topics capable of interpretations that could beclassified into more than one project type allows a greater'potential
17
to adapt to the educational needs and interests of the student. Ifsuch flexibility is not provided in the project topic selection, thefaculty members are, in essence, being limited in their authority todetermine the academic acceptability of the project.
There are not very many sites that afford opportunities in allproject types. In fact, only three alternative sites were given seri-ous consideration; Boston, Massachusetts; New York, New York; andWashington, D. C.
Boston, although offering a full variety of opportunities bothwith private organizations and government groups (local, state andfederal), was eliminated primarily because its proximity to WPI per-mitted project activities to be developed without an off-campus sitebeing distinctly identifiable. In fact, projects were already devel-oped in cooperation with the Integovernmental Relations Committee ofthe Boston Federal Executive Board, as well as with many other groups.These projects are administered directly through WPI's on-campus Proj-ects Office.
The final choice between New York and Washington was based on theopinion that, while both presented a myriad of possible project topics,D.C.-based organizations seemed to have l'roHms that were more direct-ly related to the educational objective,: program.
Several other characteristics of the Washington area make it anattractive site for an off-campus project center.
1. Student exposure to Washington-based organizations is desirableeven without career objectives in government work, in that mostengineering positions require some involvement with Federalprograms.
2. This involvement is also current, implying student exposureto the daily interaction of technologically based organiza-tions with goverment agencies.
3. The prestigiousness of having worked with a D. C. organizationhas a positive effect on the student's hiring potential upongraduation.
4. A Washington Center provides increased visibility of theschool's programs to the most concentrated source of financialsuoport for postsecondary education in the Country.
5. The information resources in the District are both unique andunrivaled.
Selection cf Cooperating Organizations
To assure a reasonable level of confidence that the objectives ofthe program can be achieved, criteria for selecting a cooperating organ-ization must be established early. The criteria being used for WPI'scenter are discussed.
1. Agency Involvement in Educationally Appropriate Projects
18
There is no sufficient substitute for the face-to-face meetingof the educator and the organization liaison in determining the mutualacceptability of a project topic, and its scope. Definition of anappropriate problem for students to addresss is obviously the significantstep in assuring the desired potential for attainment of the educationalobjectives of the program.
Two differing motivations always exist in these meetings. The educ-ator is seeking the optimization of student attainment of the educationalobjectives. The liaison is seeking the distribution of scarce resources(his effort, his staff's functions, secretarial support, and work space)in the maximization of output toward the mission of his office. Whilethese motivations are different, they are not necessarily mutually ex-clusive. Figure 3 presents a crude definition of the feasible solutionspace which does not violate the constraints of either party.
An interesting sidelight to Figure 3 would be to superimpose anindifference map. The optimization of mutual objectives could then beinterpreted as a result of the relative weights placed on attaining educ-ational objectives and organizational results. The predominant deter-minant of the shape of the curves, and thus the point of optimality, isthe effort of the faculty in advising the students relative to the effortof the organization liaison in directing the students. If the facultyeffort is greater, the assurance of attaining the educational benefitsis greater. It should be noted that the above system has a built-infeedback mechanism, in as much as liaison involvement essentially ser-vices the attainment of both objectives.
2. Suitability of Agency Personnel to an Educational Program
Once the project topic has been mutually agreed upon, then thepersonal traits of the liaison come into play. Perhaps the ideal liaisonis one who:
a. enjoys the experience of interacting with students and faculty,b. has the ability to provide experiential insights into the
relative promise of alternative solution paths,c. is nourished by the act of debate,d. possesses a familiarity with the available and not-so-avail-
able information resources of the topic, ande. is in a position of responsibility that allows him the flex-
ibility to try new approaches to solving problems.
Such attributes as above can sometimes be accurately forecast byobserving the responsibilities of a liaison's position.
3. Opportu.nity for Meaningful Impact of Student Output
19
Operating
Range
RANGE OF
MUTUTAL
ATTAINMENT
OF
OBJECTIVES
Operating
Range
J
Realistic Performance
Limit
Increasing Achievement
of Organizational
Results
Figure 3.
Limitations on Objectives
Attainment
Acceptability
Selection of a potential cooperating organization should also bebased on the realization that students do not do busy work without re-cognizing it for what it is. At the samc time, students are surprising-ly eager to make a sincere concerted effort to attempt a solution to ameaningful problem. If, after a massive effort, a student report is tobe shelved for lack of interest, it may well be that the students arebeing done more harm than good.
The usefulness of a student report to the liaison varies consider-ably. Some of the possible uses for complementing organization functionsinclude:
a. bringing the liaison up-to-date on a topic anticipated tobe of future concern,
b. adding depth to shallow sections of an in-house study,c. supplementing organization reports, issue papers, RFP
development, annual report sections, and the like, andd. providing the liaison with a tangible document that
others may have been reluctant to produce.
4. Potential Long-Term Involvement
As the efforts involved in developing a cooperating organizationcontact are considerable, initial agency selection should considerthe agency's potential long-term interest in the program. Similarly,as not all academic projects are performed at the center, the agenciesselected should logically be those that can cooperate with the academiccommunity in other endeavors. Such spin-off, in the form of on-campusprojects and research endeavors, are obviously provided a rather strongdata base, as well as faculty who have just spent a considerable amountof time with the topic. In fact, release time for faculty advisorswhen 'hey return to campus may well be a very wise investment in termsof its potential for successful proposal writing.
5. Political Considerations
In any faculty, no matter where they teach, there will always beindividual members with divergent educational beliefs. The spectrumruns from conservative traditionalism to liberal experimentalism.Occasionally, it is difficult to separate these educational beliefsfrom the political subtleties of the organizations cooperating withthe program. If that is the case, it may turn out that individualprojects are more attractive than others, on a basis of other thanacademic considerations.
If the topic problem has built-in constraints on the analysis,it will not succeed in an educational sense, despite all of the socalledexperiential learning that will occur. The resulting friction betweenthe participants in the attempt to make it successful ultimately terminatesthe relationship.
21
6. Scheduling a Blend of Organizations
There exists a symbiotic charac, tic to an off-campus projectcenter that should be developed to its tullest. By carefully selectinga blend of complementary topics with a diverse assortment of agencies,students soon discover that they can learn from each other. A collec-tivism develops which is both educationally exciting and personally re-warding.
Developing Cooperating Organizations
Crucial to the success of the program is the institution's abilityto identify and enlist a variety of site organizations to cooperate inprogram activities which have a major focus on educational goals.
The very first contacts are always the most difficult, and findingpersonnel in Washington that are willing to participate in a new educa-tional program that has no prior documentation is certainly no exception.In the development efforts for the present program, existing contactsof faculty familiar with the program were utilized. While these personalrelationships were small in number, they were instrumental in the initia-tion of a natural process that expands the number of new opportunitieswith each meeting.
The initial efforts were begun in the summer months of 1973, somefifteen months prior to the actual opening of the center. From thatsummer until the following February, the development program was imple-mented by several faculty members under the dirEction of WPI's ProjectAdministrator
The usual procedure employed to obtain a project topic and a com-mitment from an organization to cooperate in the program consists ofthe following steps:
1. an introductory meeting,2. a follow-up letter,3. a second meeting producing a specific project
description draft, and4. subsequent projects.
1. Introductory Meeting. The overall objective of the initialmeeting with an organization is simply to establish a personal relation-ship. Perhaps the most productive agenda for attaining this goal is topresent a capsule summary of the institution's goals and the objectivesof the center (in a period of time no longer than several minutes).Soliciting an equally brief description of the organization's missionallows a mutual base for each participant to determine if the meetingshould continue, or if a different person in the organization wouldbe more interested.
22
The remainder of the meeting should be spent in discussing thesteps to be completed if a project is to be performed, and the timeframe in which completion must take place.
Any aspect of the program which may not be particularly appealingto the organization should be identified, e.g., eventual funding, thefact that submittal of a project topic does not guarantee that it willbe selected, the provision of a work space, supplies, and clericalsupport for the students, etc. The fact that the program is an educ-ational endeavor cannot be understated. At the same time, the instit-ution's past accomplishments with off-campus project efforts, and themaintenance of quality through faculty supervision are the two strong-est facets of the program in terms of creating an interest on thepart of organizations in participating.
The final minutes of the initial meeting should include a mutualdiscussion of the types of project topics which will be educationallyadmissible, and the types of problems normally worked on in the organi-zation and of importance within the program timetable. The meetingshould end by suggesting that all participants give some thought toseveral possible project topics during the interim period before thenext meeting.
2. Follow-Up Letter. The essential elements of the initial meet-ing should be set in writing to reduce the possibility of misunderstand-ings. Exhibit I presents a typical follow-up letter. It is importantthat such a letter be in the hands of all who participated in the firstmeeting, as quickly as possible. The organization liaison should bereminded that a project description should be purposely brief to allowstudents a certain degree of flexibility in defining the topic them-selves. Please note that the letter displayed as Exhibit I followsa highly successful first meeting, in that the project topic had alreadybeen agreed upon.
In the majority of organizations, this will not be the case, anda second meeting is usually required to define the project topic.
3. Second Meeting. The sole purpose of this meeting is to definea general project topic that is both acceptable to the faculty in theprogram, and to the organization's liaison. For this reason, both theProjects Administrator and the Faculty Director must be present. TheProjects Administrator has the responsibility of solving logisticalproblems as they come up, because the submittal of a project descriptionis a written committment to participate in the program. The FacultyDirector has the responsibility of assuring that all appropriate com-ponents of an educational nature can be read into the project description.
Once the project description has been discussed, a deadline mustbe established for receiving it in letter form. Subsequent to thismeeting it is occasionally advisable to draft the letter for the organi-zation liaison's approval.
23
5 3
Dear Sir:
WORCESTER WorcesterPOLYTECHNIC Massachusetts 01609INSTITUTE (617) 753-1411
Exhibit I
Thank you for a most enjoyable meeting during our recent visittwo weeks ago. Our discussions with you provided an extremely posi-tive start to a very successful week in the development of our Washing-ton Projects Program. In response to our discussion, I am sendingyou an outline of the program which we propose to conduct with you.
Our discussion concerning projects focused on the development ofa monograph, to eventually be used in engineering education, dealingwith the interaction of human-technical problems in an undertakingsuch as bringing education into remote areas via satellite communica-tion systems. The project would be divided into two parts per yourconception of the major components of the total problem. We proposeto have a student group consisting of three students on site in Wash-ington during September and October of this coming fall. A secondgroup of three students would participate in the second part of theproject during February and March of 1975.
We request that you designate space in your organization for thestudents. The students will divide their time between their activitiesat your agency and at the WPI Projects Center. We anticipate that theywill spend approximately four days a week pursuing information at theagency. One day a week will be spent at the WPI Projects Center and willbe used for discussions with the faculty advisors and other students list-ening to lectures, guest speakers and planning additional efforts on theproject.
We suggest a regular weekly meeting be scheduled with you, the fac-ulty and students to review the current accomplishments and plans of thegroup and suggest specific tasks or chores that you feel should be incor-porated. The faculty will thus share a significant portion of the respon-sibility for making the total experience successful. Your input is, how-ever, very important for an exciting and highly motivating experience.We are quite confident, from our past project experience, that this willbe one of the most successful aspects of the program.
As we discussed at our prior meeting, WP do not need significantsupport for the anticipated activity during the experimental phase ofour program. We do, however, request your assistance in the form ofaccess to reports, publications, telephones, unusual travel which youfeel will benefit the outcome of the project, xeroxing, miscellaneousstationary supplies for office functions, postage and secretarial assis-tance preparing correspondence and final report.
3,1
24
Exhibit I. (continued)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
Our students may be viewed as independent contractors relative toyour organization. They carry their own student, medical and healthinsurance plans and will be covered under WPI's general liabilitypolicy.
We will be preparing the student group for their project duringthe coming months of April and May on the WPI campus in a course de-signed especially for that purpose. As part of that preparation, thestudents will address the project in which they will be involved inWashington. From our prior experience, we have found that a letterrequesting the students to undertake the project with a statement ofthe project objective coming directly from the organization support-ing the project is a highly motivating way of initiating the stu-dent group's activity. We thus request you to assist us by providinga letter on agency stationary which includes the following informa-tion: 1) an introductory paragraph stating your anticipation of aninteresting experience working with WPI, 2) an invitation to th2students to locate at your organization and work on the solution ofthe problem, 3) problem statement of one to two paragraphs whichbriefly describes the nature of the problem and the objective to whichthe students should address themselves, 4) specific information orresources which the students should begin to review in pursuing theobjective, and 5) information concerning the organization itself orreferences in that regard including general personal information use-ful for orienting the students to the staff in the organization andtheir backgrounds.
Again, thank you for your generous response to our program. Welook forward to working with you next year and to a very successfulproject.
Sincerely,
Joseph J. MielinskiProjects Administrator
25
Experience indicates that organization personnel procrastinate inthe provision of the project description, because it is the single actionwhich commits his office to participation in the program. While thisfact makes the letter somewhat difficult to obtain, it provides theoverriding advantage that the submittal of a project description is treat-ed quite seriously.
It is useful at this meeting to again remind the organizationliaison that his topic is to be presented to the faculty and studentsof the center along with all other topics, and its selection for im-plementation is not certain, being dependent on the number of studentsenrolled, their academic backgrounds, and so on.
4. Subsequent Projects. Once a project has been successfullycompleted with a particular organization, and an opportunity has beenprovided to mutually suggest improvements in the mode of operation, sub-sequent project descriptions are easily developable. Similarly, neworganizations can be contacted through existing liaison, and the natureof the program can be verified by pointing to past achievements. Theonly challenge remy!ning is to obtain funding for the program directlyfrom cooperating agencies. This aspect is treated in a subsequentsection.
Student Selection and Preparation
The preparatory steps associated with the development of a studentmembership to an off-campus center include:
1. advertising the nature and availability of the center,2. administering student applications,3. interviewing students,4. selecting students willing to commit to the program, and5. preparing the selected students for the project activities.
Advertising
The initiation of any new program requires a significant effortin informing potential participants of the program's opportunitiesand limitations. To avoid unnecessary difficulties, announcementsshould specify what the center does not do as well as what it does do.
Two campaigns can be run, one distributing general information(usually through the campus newspaper or the closed-circuit, campustelevision system), the other disseminating more specific information(through seminars or informal discussion sessions).
Applications
To facilitate planning and staffing, an initial indication ofstudent interest can be obtained by distributing applications forparticipation in the program as part of the advertising campaign. Theapplications prove most useful if they solicit the academic term during
26
which the applicant plans to be at the center. Beyond this, requiringfurther information reduces the rate of response to the forms.
Interviewing and Selecting
Interviewing student applicants allows a two-way discussion ofthe center's operation, giving the student the opportunity to obtainmore detailed information at a personal level, and giving the facultymembers involved in the program an opportunity to obtain and assessinformation about the applicant.
One of the primary purposes of the interview is to determine ifthe student would benefit by the type of educational experience thecenter offers. As this is a somewhat difficult task to perform, threelevels of interview results are developed:
1. the student would definitely benefit, and should be acceptedimmediately,
2. the student's background may not be so well suited to theprogram as to warrant immediate acceptance, and the studentis placed on a waiting list, or
3. the student's background and past experiences are felt notto be adequate for him to be successful, and the student isnotified to that effect.
To assist in the development of the program, interview informa-tion is also assembled on the students academic majors, past projectexperiences, general interests, and the range of project topics andcooperating organizations that are of interest.
Preparation
Every student selected to attend the Washington D. C. ProjectCenter, is required to complete a preparation course, InteractiveProject Initiation. The course is offered by the Division of Inter-disciplinary Affairs on a regular basis to all students, not exclusive-ly those who are preparing for Washington.
The course has four major components:1. the coupling of a student project group to a project topic,2. the introduction of the student to societal-technological
interfaces,3. the identification and development of skills and techniques
required of the student group to implement their particularproject effort, and
4. the preparation of a proposal to the cooperating organizationdescribing the method of attack for the specific project.
After coupling student groups to topics, the course is essentiallycomposed of two types of activities. On the one hand, students arepresented information which is of general value in addressing societal-
27
3 7
technological issues; on the other, each student group is focusing onthe particular project topic that is its responsibility.
To achieve both goals requires a significant faculty effort. In-formation of general value to all students is presented through normalclassroom presentations by faculty and outside speakers. Informationspecific to particular project topics, however, cannot realistically bepresented to the entire group. As such, this element of the course isassigned to the particular faculty members who will be responsible foradvising the topics when the projects are finally conducted at thecenter.
More specific information on the course content in each of thefour segments described above is presented in the following sections.
1. Coupling Student Groups to Topics
At the first course meeting all students are presented the projecttopics that are available, in the form of a bound collection of coop-erating organization letters. The students are also provided a prefer-ence form on which they are to indicate their first, second and thirdchoices for projects, and any preferences they have in relation tofellov, group members. The faculty member most familiar with the projecttopics (at this point, usually the center director), provides some in-signt into the general framework of each topic.
By the third meeting of the course, student groups are matched tospecific topics by the course instructor. The matching requires simul-taneous consideration of:
student preferences,2. appropriateness to the topic of student background as displayed
by his or her transcript, and3. appropriateness of student background in complementing the
backgrounds of the other students in the project group.
2. Societal-Technological Interfaces
In this component of the course, the class explores some of themany facets of the technology-society interface. Discussion topicsand reading are selected from such areas as the history of technology,social values and social responsibility, the social consequences andimpact of technology, ethics and ethical systems, social criticism andsocial programs, technology forecasting and assessment, and the workingsof politics and government. Speakers and discussion leaders are invitedfrom off-campus as well as from the faculty at large.
Given the multiple objectives of the preparation course, thisexploration phase is at best a survey, a broad and general treatment oftechnology/society issues and questions. Where a topic being discussedbears directly on one or more of the nrojects, the respective groups
28
are advised to pursue the topic in greater detail with the assistanceof the faculty project advisors.
The schedule for the Term D, 1975 offering of the course is shownin Figure 4.
3. Skills Development
As an individual project team undertakes the background and researchwork pertinent to its project topic or problem, it soon discovers thatin addition to broad issues and questions, there is a body of methdology,procedure, and information associated with the area. Skills in some ofthis methodology may have been obtained by one or more members of theteam through prior course or project work. If this is not the case,however, it is the responsibility of the project team, with the assistanceof the project advisors, to develop the necessary skills to a level judgedappropriate to the demands of the project.
This might be done through course work if the schedule for theparticular project is such that an academic term intervenes betweenthe preparation course and project execution. Alternatively, it canbe done by independent study; particularly helpful in this case isthe availability of modular materials which focus on specific topicsand methodologies, and which provide bibliographic starting pointsfor the further development of skills.
It is at this point, early in the preparation course, that the work-ing relationship between the project team and the faculty advisors is estab-lished. The nature of this relationship, and specific comments on the advisor's role in the project, are included in Section IV of this Guide.
4. Project Proposal Preparation
The bulk of student effort in the preparation course is directedtoward the writing of the project proposal, the suggested elements ofwhich are as shown in Figure 5. The proposal is a most critical elementin the Project Center concept. The seven-week residence period at thecenter is long enough to carry out a successful project only if suffi-cient background, research, and planning efforts preceed the residence.
Proposal preparation is monitored by the project advisor in regu-larly scheduled, out-of-class meetings with the project team. Shouldquestions of sponsor intent or expectation arise, the advisors willresolve the questions by direct communication with the sponsor. Thefinal, typed proposal document is due at the end of the preparationcourse, at which time each team is also responsible for a short oralpresentation describing the project as proposed. A copy of the proposalis normally sent to the sponsoring agency shortly after the close ofthe preparation course.
29
103040 1.E00 075 SCHEDULE
DATE
9:00 - 10:00 10:(10 11:00
4/3 Organization, schedule Pres. Hazzard: On theProcedures, etc. Technologic(ll Humanist
4/8 Hand in preference sheets What is a proposal?Resource location, Library PERT and project planning
4/10 Groups announced. Advisors Dean Grogan: The 101) and WPIintroduced. Schedulesestablished.
4/15 Norman FaramelliBoston Industrial Mission
4/17 Weekly progress report due.Case Studies in Engineering Ethics, Profs Niep and Scott
4/23 3:00 5:00 P.M.Dr. Robert Miller, Value Clarification"
4/24 Weekly progress report due. Discussion on IntermediateFilm on the New Alchemy Technology
4/29 Ethical systems Case discussions
5/1 Weekly progress report due. Group dynamics and management,a) Washington Orientation Professor Bjorklund
Professor Hoffmanb) Alternate activity for
Worcester projects
5/6 Cost Benefit and Cost Effec- Social Criticism and Socialtiveness Analysis, ProgramsProf. O'Connor Prof. Goodwin
5/8 Typed_ Semi-Final draft dueHow Government Works William G. Flynn
5/13 Draft returned with comments ProtocolConsumer Protection and PIRGProfessor Bourgault
5/15 Oral Reports, 10 minutes each, with AV aids
5/20 Final propo:,als due, TYPEDOral Reports. 10 minutes each, with AV aids
Figure 4. Preparation Course Schedule
30
1. ABSTRACT - 1 page
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE
A clear, concise problem statement that includes a descriptionof the form of the final results.
3. INTRODUCTION
Why was the project developed? How? Background informationregarding the project development.
4 DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF THE PROBLEM
This is the body of the proposal and should be divided intosubheadings. It represents the results of weeks of researchon the project topic. It should be clearly referenced. Thefollowing method is recommended.
5. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
This is a clear detailed description of what the projectentails and bow it will be carried out. Statements shouldbe very specific and very detailed. What additional informa-tion is needed? What contacts need to be made? What problemsdo you anticipate? How will the final results oe presented toinsure maximum utilization? etc. This section will develop adetailed outline of the overall project. The actual outlinewill appear in the appendix.
6. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
Pert ChartPersonnelBudgetLogistics (Equipment, Transportation, etc.)
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
8. APPENDICES
Figure 5. Elements of a Project Proposal
31
Faculty Selection and Preparation
Selection of faculty for participation in an off-campu :. projectcenter involves many considerations. First, the general concept ofoff-campus IQP activities is significantly different from the moretraditional engineering and science curriculum. Accordingly, facultyexperience in prior IQP advising is very valuable and should representa significant component of the selection criteria.
Since the projects are diversified and span many disciplinaryareas, great strength in any one disciplinary area would not be nearlyas important a consideration as a systems ability to tackle, dissectand structure the methodology for a diversity of problems.
Co-advising of projects permits differing faculty perspectives tofocus on the same problem, enhancing the resultant educational benefitsto the students and to the individual faculty. This affect,3 not onlythe projects advised in Washing':on, but also those conducted subsequentlyon return to campus. Thus, it is desirable to select and pair faculty ofcomplimentary disciplines, who are receptive to working together.
Creation of an off-campus project center can introduce significantperturbations into the normal college operations structure. it is thusimportant for faculty to clearly understand the precise role throughwhich other faculty and the college administration see their participation.Where strong departmental interests are predominant in management processes,this can potentially work to the detriment of faculty who participate inan interdisciplinary off-campus activity.
Faculty academic achievement is assessed and rewarded on the basisof promotion, tenure and salary increments. The latter is often managedthrough individual departmental budgets. Participation in an off-campusproject center serves to benefit the entire school, and not the individualdepartment. Thus, a conflict arises as to whether one department shouldreward activities of such broad-based perspective. It is imperative thatcenter faculty clearly under.;tand the nature of this process, and thatadequate measures be employed to assure recognition of their efforts. Aninstitution-wide solution exists in terms of monetary rewards in that theDean of Faculty can be given authority over a significant fraction ofannual salary increases.
Promotion and tenure offer additional rewards to faculty for academicachievement. Traditional critecia for such rewards include teaching abil-ity, research and creative scholarship and service to the school. Off-Campus faculty participation encompasses a blend of all three of theseelements. Project advising, working closely with students, representsa form of teaching far more difficult than prepared formal classroomlectures. Analysis of project problems and the synthesis of their sol-utions often requires significant creativity and innovation on the partof both faculty and students.
ei 2
32
More conservative viewers may consider only graduate-level, pub-lishable research as research and creative scholarship. In whicheverfashion this criteria is considered, it is imperative that faculty con-templating participation in interdisciplinary off-campus activities bewell aware of the role the activity may play in their promotion andtenure considerations.
An off-campus center does allow the faculty to develop graduate-level research contacts with many of the cooperating organizations. Thismay be at the expense, however, of the undergraduate students and theprojects being advised. Faculty selection must consider all of the aboveinfluences.
As with students, faculty preparation prior to their term off-campusis a vital facet for successful program operation. The faculty must per-sonally be acquainted with the agency liaisons and fully comprehend theenvironment in which the project will be carried out.
The initial phase of preparation involves faculty in many of the pre-liminary project planning meetings with agency personnel, during which theobjectives of the project center are discussed. The bulk of this effort iscarried out, however, by the Center Director and Projects Administrator.
All faculty of the Washington Project Center participate as advisorsin the project preparation course. They assist the students in definingthe project topic, in researching background information and in develop-ing a logical methodology for project implementation. In the midst ofthis course, the faculty visit the liaisons in Washington, a procedurewhich serves to help clarify the cooperating organizations' objectives.Scheduling of this meeting in the midst of the preparation course permitsprior acquisition of valuable background information for the faculty, thusrendering the ensuing agency meeting far more productive. Enough time isstill provided for students to utilize the benefits of these meetings forpreparation of their project proposals. These meetings also serve tomaintain personal rapport between the faculty and agency liaison prior tothe faculty's actual arrival in Washington.
The project preparation course also serves to acquaint faculty withthe students they will advise in Washington. On the surface this mayappear inconsequential. However, even in a school the size of WPI (2.000undergraduates) contact between students and faculty not within the samedepartment is less than would be desirable. Thus, meeting and knowingthe students, and close exposure during formulation of preliminary projectmethodologies serve to make the subsequent off-campus project advising farmore effective.
33
IV. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
This Chapter addresses some of the considerations of the on-siteoperational phase of the project center:
1. the interactions between the various programparticipants (students, faculty advisors andLooperating organization liaison),
2. the activities and scheduling required tocomplete the educational projects,
3. the desired form and content of the finalstudent reports, and
4. the roles of academic standards and projectperformance evaluation.
There Exists no one set of procedures that the program participantscan follow to insure the successful completion of each of the very dif-ferent projects that are addressed on an off-campus center. A partiallist of the highly variable influences on each participant's contributionsto the project effort include:
1. the abilities, strengths, weaknesses andeducational backgrounds of the studentsin Pach project group,
2. the teaching approach, discipline, andpersonal characteristics of the facultyadvisors,
3. the very unpredictable blend that resultswhen individual students work together asa project group,
4. the extent and type of involvement providedat the cooperating organization, and
5. the symbiosis that results from the inter-change occurring between groups.
The following discussion is based on the experiences that accompanythe experimentation needed to run an off-campus project center during itsfirst year. It reflects on the few operational procedures that can besuccessfully adapted to all individual project cases, and also on thoseaspects of the program which are best left to the adaptability of the pro-gram's participants.
1. Participant Interactions
Interaction between the sponsoring organization, students, and facultyadvisors requires a clear understanding as to the effort to be provided by,and the specific responsibilities of, each of the participants. Althoughthe primary responsibility rests squarely on the students, both the spon-soring agency and the faculty advisor make specific contributions to thetotal effort. It is important that everyone involved know the expectedextent of his or her contribution, and that the students are aware of allthe interactions that might occur in the total educational experience atthe Center.
34
4 4
The contributing facets of this experience involve:a) the students' contribution to the sponsoring agency and
the agency's contribution to the project,b) the faculty advisor's contribution to the student and
to the sponsoring organization,c) the interproject activities that should occur, andd) the opportunities that exist in the center's site area.
a) The students contribution to the sponsoring agency and the agency'scontribution to the project.
It is expected that students will provide the same effort and stand-ards to their project that would be expected of a beginning professionalin the field. This has several ramifications because the student is work-ing on a specific project, and because he or she has responsibilities tothe organization as well as to the college in satisfactorily completingthe project.
Student's hours at the agency will usually be the same as thoseof agency personnel, with some degree of freedom for outside research.The organization must not normally assign the student typical internor work-study jobs at the agency. Since there is a specific projectobjective to be accomplished during the term, the student, with advicefrom the faculty and agency liaison, will be responsible for planninghis method of attack, researching necessary material, interpreting andcreatively solving the problem, and providing necessary oral and writtendocumentation of his work. In accomplishing these results, the studentwill necessarily have to do some of his work outside normal working hours.This is typical of any professional effort and usually becomes increasing-ly necessary in che terminal stages of the project.
Immersion in the organization to learn organizational and inter-active facets is important at the beginning of the project, and it shouldbe expected, by all concerned, that a moderate amount of time at the beg-inning of the project will be spent in learning about the agency and pro-ject fundamentals.
As many resources as possible should be made available to the studentso that he can accomplish as much as possible within the term. The liaison'srole should be one of supporting and directing the students as he woulda group of consultants. The amount of interaction between the organization'sliaison and the students, however, varies quite considerably from projectto project depending on the need for guidance and the type of project; justas it would from consultant to consultant.
The student should supply the sponsoring organization with his week-ly work record and plans for the following week as described in the follow-ing section. This report appraises the agency of the progress of the pro-ject, and frequently spawns suggestions that ultimately lead to major im-provements in the final product.
35
b) The faculty advisor's contribution to the student and to thesponsoring organization.
In suggesting the proper areas of influence and guidance that thefaculty advisors provide the students, it must be recognized that thebroad scope of specific knowledge gained by the students involved inthe projects will seldom be matched by the advisors. As the projectprogresses, the gap between specific knowledge held by students andadvisor should widen. The students will do extensive reading andhave access to in-house experts. It is usually impossible for theadvisor to have this kind of exposure to every project. A single pro-ject is usually a small percentage of his responsibility. In a fewcases the previous experience of the advisor may closely coincidewith the project topic, but this will not, and should not, always bethe case.
The following are suggested ways in which the advisor can beof real help in attaining the mutual objectives of an outstandingproject:
1. The advisor plans the original project objectiveswith the group after their initial proposal issubmitted. He tries to limit and direct the pro-posal and help the project group in setting up a
realistic set of tasks.2. After the procedure and objectives are established,
he directs the group by discussing developing phasesof the project.
3. He stays informed (or becomes informed) on thetheoretical bases of the project, so that he candiscuss various areas knowledgeably.
4. He suggests additional areas of basic researchand ramiFications of project objectives.
5. He suggests project task cut-off times, if thetime-objective framework indicates.
6. He sees that a task chart with individual assign-ments is completed at the start of the projectPERT procedures, in their simplest form, shouldbe used to determine the critical path. Tasksand accomplishments must be reviewed frequentlyand revised occasionally.
7. He sees that a running log, in professional form,is kept by each member of the project group, andreviews these logs frequently.
8. He reviews weekly time-accomplishment reports alongwith the next week's planned tasks.
9. The advisor schedules regular meetings with thewhole group and is available for problem discussionsas they occur on a limited basis. He avoids totalinvolvement, however, since this is neither proper
6
36
nor educationally helpful. Many problems can beeffectively solved by students alone - and shouldbe - so that confidence in problem-solving abilitycan be inculcated.
10. The advisor provides insights into formal reportwriting for all written material as it is produced.Material must be written as the project progressesand the advisor suggests rewrites or organizationalchanges to improve coherency and the student's abilityin the area.
As indicated above, the organization must not expect a facultyconsultant solution to the project problem. The students must beallowed to develop their own solution with guidance as suggested pre-viously.
There should, however, be a solid interface between the advisorand organization liaison personnel. Either one should feel free tocontact the other about any questions arising in regard to the pro-ject. The organization representative should attend as many of thescheduled weekly meetings at the organizational site as he can. Atthese meetings, students, advisors, and liaison can discuss any facetof the project including project progress, objectives, related topics,personnel problems and suggested revisions or procedures.
c) Project interaction activities.
Outside of the liaison-faculty-student interaction, there is a
very important educational area that will frequently provide newmaterial for projects. It occurs in the project center through stu-dent interaction. Everyday conversation turns quite often to dis-cussions of Washington, the crazy agency I work with, the politicallyoriented conversation I had at the agency today and so on. Thus, stu-dents get to know more about the workings of Washington and aboutother facets of a huge, sprawling Government. Project problemF --ebrought out, and frequently other students have contacts or informationthat can be helpful. It, in effect, provides agency interaction ina way that sometimes never occurs in the various areas of the govern-ment because of a lack of contact.
A second, planned project interaction occurs on a weekly basisand this involves organized presentations to all the project groups,the faculty, and agency representatives. Every project group pre-sents a concise, carefully organized updating on its project. Thisprovides excellent training in communication skills and in prepara-tion of visual aids. Data acquisition difficulties frequently areresolved by other student groups. Feedback from peers and advisorsprovides additional viewpoints to the project group during the pre-sentation, and the value of communication is inculcated.
4 7
37
Sometimes these sessions are used for presentations and informaldiscussion not specifically related to the projects. Several Wash-ington insiders from agencies, political ranks, or alumni working inWashington are invited to make short presentations and continue withAn informal discussion
Other sessions include presentations in specific informationareas for which one or more groups find a need; for example, economicsfundamentals from a faculty member or a Washington specialist, or apresentation on technical report writing.
d) Washington scene contributions.
Obviously, one of the important spinoffs of the Washington ex-perience is the opportunity for sightseeing, entertainment, and inter-action with other Washington residents. This area provides superbeducational experiences and contributes to a more mature, professionalproject approach and certainly to the sophistication of the student.Sightseeing includes many different types of interesting and educationalactivities. These includo taking in the usual historical sites andmuseums, more obscure and less publicized points of interest, unlimitedresearch and data sources, and many educational and entertaining tripsand tours.
Information about current programs, exhibits and tours is avail-able in local papers and a very fine guidebook was found to be "GoingPlaces With Children" (yes, seriously) which is available in any localbookstore.
Entertainment is varied and includes the best in theatre and con-certs (many of them with no admission charge), a tremendous varietyof excellent restaurants, and some interesting clubs and bars.
Interactions with other college students and interns, rap sessions,and exchange of information, occur very frequently when the studentsbecome involved in other extracurricular activities.
2. Scheduling
The Washington project, even more than other WPI interactive pro-jects, requires a great deal of attention to activity scheduling. Theseven-week time frame, within which the project, operates makes itessential that report material be produced from the very first week.Experimentation, by allowing the final work and report preparation tocarry over into the next term, indicated that it was a poor procedure.With the student's new term pressures taking precedence, completionof the project does not normally go well even if the period immediate-ly following the project is a scheduled break period. The proceduresused in scheduling and reporting to produce results within the seven-week
38
term, are described below:
Since there is an original proposal prepared before the projectgroup comes to Washington to begin its project, students must con-sult with agency liaison, faculty and each other to modify this pre-viously formulated proposal if necessary. It is quite common for theproject objectives to change between the time the agency originallyprepares its statement and the time the actual project work begins.With the new objectives defined, a semi-final list of tasks and sug-gested procedures for accomplishment are developed and discussed.
The students must then prepare a detailed task chart listing asmany individual items required for project accomplishment as can begenerated. Time estimates and individual assignments, and a bargraph indicating approximate starting and stopping times are made.Other types of scheduling are certainly possible and PERT charts,showing the network and critical path are fine, but it is essentialthat complete and serious scheduling be the first order of business.
Firm requirements must be established by the advisors, particu-larly at the beginning of the project. At tne end of the first week,the Introduction and first Appendix of the project's final reportshould be turned in for review. The Introduction presents the v:ack-ground and need for the project and builds a foundation for it, while,Appendix A describes the organization, funding, and objectives of theagency. Although it is possible that this material may have to bemodified in the final report, it is important that it be written andreviewed during the first week for several reasons which follow.
a. Students must be made to realize that it isalways easier to modify material then to originallycreate it.
b. The final report starts to form and there isactually some written material in place. Thiskeeps the student from worrying about the traumaof preparing the report in the final weeks oftheir residence.
c. The faculty has an opportunity early in theproject to provide feedback on technicalwriting skills.
d. The student must clearly communicate the needfor, and requirements of, the project, whilebecoming totally involved.
By the end of the second week the final report outline must becomplete. This will eventually become the Table of Contents. Withthis indication of what must finally be done, and with the first ofthe written material in place, he can see the report taking form.
Every week some written material is passed into the faculty advisorfor his review. The final draft copy comes to the advisor by the end of
39
the fifth week and weaknesses are identified, permitting time for addit-ional analyses.
The final week is spent completing the written report and preparingthe oral report for presentation to the sponsoring organization. Theseoral reports are typically informal in nature and include the use ofvisual aids.
Records and Meetings
Usually there will be one scheduled meeting with students, facultyand agency liaison at the agency each week. Meetings last from one totwo hours. Activities at these meetings include:
a. review of log sheets as a means of bringing theadvisors up to date on progress,
b. comparison of progress with PERT and task charts,c. student request for faculty input on specific topics,d. review and interpretation of advisor comments on
previous week's material,e. review of suggested work activities for the next
week, andf. informal discussion of project topics and identi-
fication of additional sources of information.
Each project group will keep a notebook that contains the followingmaterial:
a. weekly log sheets and next week's plans for eachstudent,
b. a list of all contacts made in connection with theproject, with agency affiliation and telephonenumber, and
c. all rough draft material as it is written. (This
notebook which is reviewed by the advisor weeklyand returned to the project group, gradually be-comes the rough draft of the final report.)
A sample of a typical log(weekly report) sheet follows:
5 0
40
FORMAT FOR PERSONAL LOG SHEET:
DATE
NAME:
FROM: (DATE) TO: (DATE)
ORGANIZATION
LOG SHEET
PLACE TIME DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES
4/2/75 Org. 1-5:30 Meeting: Topic (Task I)
Present: Name, Title
(Detailed Minutes p.
Substantive Content:
1.
2.
3.
Permission was granted to quoteor paraphrase.
3. Final Report Guidelines
Considerable experimentation took place during the center's firstyear in providing the students with a clear indication of the faculty'sexpectations with regard to the form and content of the final writtenreport that each project group was required to submit.
"Final Report Guidelines" (contained in the Washington, D.C. ProjectCenter Procedures Manual, given to each student participating in theprogram) is an attempt to:
5 i
41
1) identify faculty expectations concerned withreport content in terms of coherency, organizationand analytical depth, and
2) establish a minimum level of acceptability in thestudent's perception of the art of formal reportwriting.
The disadvantage of prespecifying the final report format is thedistinct possibility of limiting the creativity of the project groupin developing a format which would be more directly amenable to thespecific project topic being analyzed. For this reason, the "FinalReport Guidelines" are prepared in a way that they can be adapted tovirtually any educational project effort with a significant analyticalcontent, and the faculty advisors are careful to assure an alternativeformat proposed by any project group is given equal consideration asan alternative.
Pertinent excerpts from the "Final Report Guidelines" are presentedin Appendix B. Below is the Table of Contents specified for all finalproject reports completed through the Washington, D. C. Project Center.Perusal of the Chapter titles should confirm their adaptability to vir-tually any educational project that requires an analytical approach.
Letter of TransmittalTitle SheetAbstractTable of ContentsI. Introduction
II. Executive SummaryIII. Literature Review (or Background Information)IV. Methodology (or Procedure)V. Results
VI. Analysis of ResultsVII. Conclusions
VIII. RecommendationsAPPENDICESA. Organizational Structure of Agency
4. Maintaining Academic Standards
Design of an academic program for safeguarding standards can onlybe accomplished by providing faculty with a wide variety of alternativeevaluation methods, not a prespecified definition of standards. Estab-lishing procedures for oral presentations, interim reports, draft re-views, and a format for final report presentation provide the facultyadvisors with a range of evaluative techniques and teaching devicesthat assure him sufficient opportunities to maintain standards.
42
5 2
V. PROGRAM EVALUATION
Achieving Program Objectives
An off-campus project center requires four different groups ofparticipants to mutually support the program. The cooperating agency,the college administration, the students and the faculty share certainmutual objectives, but also have distinct individual expectations.While there is agreement that educational objectives are most import-ant, the success of the program is judged by whether or not the in-dividual expectations of each party are also met.
The Washington Project Center was originally proposed as year-and-a-half, proof-of-concept operation to be followed by one-half yearof the program evaluation. The program would achieve a steady-stateoperational mode beginning with the third year. This report is beingprepared at the end of the first year of operation, as such, the majorportion of the evaluation is yet to be completed. Therefore thischapter primarily contains a discussion of what must be evaluatedafter the proof-of-concept stage, rather than actual evaluation re-sults.
Documentation
Data must be gathered so that the program's Progress in achievingeach objective can be evaluated. The most visible documentation ot theproject is the final student report. Additional tangible documentationof the project is available in the form of tape-recorded interim andfinal oral presentations, further use and, possibly, publication ofportions of the final written reports, and by follow-up evaluations ofthe program.
Certain intangibles, such as visibility of the college name, can-not be directly documented, however, that should not prevent such factorsfrom being considered in evaluating the success of the program.
Evaluation of Faculty Development Objectives Achievement
Most of the issues related to achieving the objectives of the part-icipating faculty will be evaluated through a properly constructed quest-ionnaire. All the faculty that have thus far returned from Washingtonare enthusiastic that participation in the program has greatly expandedtheir professional experiences. The faculty also feel that the benefitsof these experiences far outweigh the disadvantages of the separationfrom campus. Faculty members typically return from Washington with therenewed vigor and broadened outlook that is typical of a sabbaticalleave.
The most frequEnt mentioned benefits are change$ project ad-vising skills brought about by a full-time effort in advising projects.
43
5 3
The advantages of co-advising projects and improved ability to eval-uate
Evaluation of Administrative and Financial Objectives Achievement
The administrative and financial objectives were posed as aseries of nine questions. The answers to these questions provideevaluation as to whether these objectives have been met. The maj-ority of answers will not surface from two or three years.
a4A.1
1. In regard to the implementation of the school's educ-ational objectives, what progress has been made? Pre-liminary responses by organization liaison and off-campus observers indicate acceptance of the IQP as avalid educational mech'nism and a general satisfactionwith the output of WPI students. While it is impossibleto know if this institute is progressing rapidly enoughat this time, the off-campus center has at least giventhe college the knowledge that it has progressed.
2. Can an intensive effort be made to focus campus attentionon interdisciplinary activities at the societal-technolog-ical interface?
The Washington Project Center focused more attention onthe IQP than any other single activity at WPI. Part-icipating faculty have been among the most active ad-visors of on-campus IQP's. The extent of adoption bythe rest of the facuity of the co-advising system,final report format guidelines, and other mechanismswill be indicators of how much attention is given tothe activities of the off-campus center.
3. Are the faculty able to advise students in an inter-disciplinary environment while separated from thecampus?
During the first year of operation, all five facultymembers were from engineering departments. Theirability to guide students into disciplinary areasnot their own is well documented by the issues add-ressed in the completed final reports. That is notto say, however, that this guidance was providedpainlessly. Many hours of preparatory reading in avariety of subjects are invested in each studentcontact hour. additionally, the faculty regardedthis as an exciting challenging experience.
In succeeding years, the faculty co-advisors willbe a combination of an engineer or physical scientist,and a social scientist or humanities teacher.
44
4. Are students capable of achieving academic goalswithout access to on-campus resources?
It is the consensus of the center's faculty thatthe vast majority of student work produced at thecenter exceeded expectations.
5. Are the peer review systems of promotion and tenurecapable of recognizing faculty accomplishments in thisarea?
Clearly this question cannot be answered at this time,and it will be two to three years before the data isfully available. Since faculty participation inthe center requires additional effort, faculty tendto feel that the rewards for participation should bevisible shortly. It is not clear that the reviewsystems are capable of functioning within the timeframe which seem appropriate to the faculty.
6. Is the impact of the school's new visibility throughthe program beneficial?
All public use of an off-campus project center mat-erial over the first several years of operationshould be clearly documented. These materials includenews releases, college promotional material for newstudent recruiting, material incorporated into fund-ing proposals, and public presentation by faculty,students, or administration dealing with projectcenter operations. Clear documentation of pub-licity-oriented use of project center material willallow its net worth to the col-:ege to be estimated.
7. Can a budgetary process be devised to allow the flex-ibility required to function, and the accountabilityrequired to establish, a separate and distinct op-eration?
It can be concluded that a sufficient number ofbudgetary logistical devices exist for an off-campuscenter to function. However, the on-site directormust be allowed a sufficient level of discretionduring the first year of the program to be able torespond to unanticipated cost items. The alternativeof on-campus approval prior to all expenditureswould cause delays long enough to debilitate thevast majority of the program's functional elements.
5 :3
45
8. Can a center exist outside of the normal matrix organ-izational structure to better respond to interdisciplinaryaffairs?
The establishment of a center directed at interdisciplinaryprojects would serve as proof that the heads of departmentsconsider the goals of the college to be as important as, oreven more important than, the goals of each indivudal dis-cipline.
However, as a result of not being under the jurisdictionof any single department, the center's staff would nothave access to administrative support functions withoutthe existence of an office that specifically providessuch services to non-departmental functions. Withoutsuch support, the logistics of ope. citing an off-campuscenter would be debilitating. At WPI, such an office,the Projects Office, had been in operation for two yearsat the start of the program.
The responsibilities of this Office include:
1. processing and maintaining the financialrecords of all expenditures,
2. assisting the center director with the de-velopmental and follow-up efforts of ex-panding organization contracts,
3. coordinating all on-campus functions w'thcenter activities, and
4. coordinating student recruitment and sel-ection.
9. What will be the impact of returning students and facultyon the campus?
a. Returning Student Input to Campus Environment. Ingeneral, this area can only be evaluated subjectivelyby questioning students, faculty and administration.Tangible results appear in the form of on-campus stu-dent presentations and utilization of student reportsas case studies.
b. Returning Faculty Input on to Campus Environment.Faculty development can be evaluated by documentingfuture faculty endeavors after returning from theWashington experience. Increased faculty capabil-ities in developing and maintaining off-campus pro-ject involvement should be apparent. If facultydevelopment has taken place, then subsequent pay,
46
5 6
promotion and tenure considerations of the part-icipants should be above average.
Evaluation of Student Objectives Achievement
The primary student objective is the completion of a degree re-quirement. In many instances the student's opinion of the Washingtonexperience is governed by the grade evaluation of his performance.Whether or not additional student objectives have been satisfied canbe determined fv-om faculty and student questionnaires.
1. More Interesting Projects with Better Logistical Support.The importance that the students attach to this objectiveand whether it was achieved will best be determined by astudent questionnaire. Better logistical support is amotivating criteria for many students.
2. Opportunity for a Concentrated In-Depth Study.The concentrated effort is considered a benefit by manystudents, however, it also limits flexibility in sched-uling other courses which may be infrequently offered.Here again a student questionnaire is the only way toeffectively evaluate this area.
3. Pre-Job Experience. The value of this objective becomesmost apparent after graduation when the student beginshis or her first job. Several points need to be documented;the extent to which it helped in obtaining the first job,use of the faculty advisor and agency liaison as a reference,and the extent to which the experience aided the transitionto the first job. This data can only be fully evaluated a
year or two after completion of the project, however, manystudents have already used their Washington Project advisoras a reference.
4. Improved Skills. This area can best be evaluated by thefaculty advisors with possible input from the agency liaison.The faculty member has a close association with the studentfrom the project preparation course through the completionof the project. Growth of student skills should be notedby the faculty member since it is a criterion in the gradeevaluation. Comparison of work submitted and oral pre-sentations in the preparation course versus the final reportpresentations can be made relatively easily. These samecomparisons should be made with a control group of studentsnot participating in center operations. The student par-ticipating in the project center operations may appear toexperience a quantum increase in skills and therefore re-flect favorably on the program. This may not be borne
47
57
out quantitatively since the same growth may take placein on-campus students over the longer time duration oftheir projects. Student opinion of improved skillsshould also be evaluated through a questionnaire.
5. The Social Experience of Living and Working in Washington.This is an important criterion. Proper choice of livingquarters in terms of location and interior environment willgenerally insure that this objective is met. It is veryeasy to obtain student input on this matter. Student re-action thus far has been favorable.
6. Close Faculty Contact. Like most other objectives in thissection the primary data available will be gathered throughstudent questionnaires. Faculty should also be contactedon this issue.
Evaluation of Organizational Objectives Achievement
The organizational objectives previously described are the use-fulness of the student report, professional satisfaction in partici-pating in the educational process, close contact with faculty, andinformation obtained through program participation and the possiblerecruitment of some student participants. The most significantagency evaluation of the program will be their attitude toward part-icipation in future projects and the degree to which they are will-ing to fund future projects. Clearly the desire to participate inand fund future projects represents the highest level of agencyevaluation of the success of past projects.
The method for evaluation of whether each specific agency ob-jective is being met is outlined below.
1 Usefulness of the Student Report. The following documenta-tion is required to evaluate this objective. How was thestudent report used and was it closely allied to a specificagency mission? Reports done on topics that are not closelyallied to a specific agency mission are apt not to be useful.How much time did the liaison devote to the students, andwhat was the degree of enthusiasm with which this time wasgranted? The degree of liaison interest is often directlyrelated to the importance of the topic, the amount of agencylogistical support provided for the project and the mannerin which it was allocated. If the agency balks at committingsecretarial time, they are probably evaluating the usefulnessof the project. A general evaluation of the usefulness ofthe project can be obtained by combining writing evaluationsby faculty and agency personnel.
Q0 0
48
2. Professional Satisfaction in Participating in the EducationalProcess. This is intangible and difficult to assess. Com-bined written evaluation by the faculty and agency personnelassociated with the students, the type of guidance they aregiven, and the manner in which the agency personnel utilizedthe students. If the agency personnel consider the studentssolely as a pool of free labor then this objective is notimportant to them. The "degree of protection" afforded thestudents by the agency is a good indicator as to how theyrate this objective. This is an important criterion inselecting an agency.
3. Contact with Faculty. Experience in the program has shownthat some agencies appear to consider the contact withfaculty one of the most important aspects of the program.It may be important to the success of the program that thefaculty advisors make an effort to develop strong relation-ships with the liaison independent of the student project.Written evaluation by faculty and agency personnel can beused to determine whether this objective has been met (oris important).
4. Information Obtained Through Program Participation.This objective only becomes important in some agencieswhere several successive projects are initiated. Generally,faculty are in a position to determine if the agency is in-terested in information that is transmitted between agen-cies through program participation.
5. Whether participation in Washington Project Center operationsbenefits an organization in recruiting students cannot beevaluated at this time. There are two potential benefitsin this area; recruitment of a student who worked on aproject with the organization, or recruitment of anotherWPI student who was not affiliated with an organization'sproject, but was attracted by the favorable publicity gen-erated by such a project.
Evaluation of Educational Objectives Achievement
The primary evaluation (grading) of student success in fulfi:lingthe educational objectives of the project is the responsibility of thefaculty advisors. This evaluation generally considers the broadspectrum of student effort including the final report, oral pre-sentations, meetings with the advisors, and work submitted throughoutthe project. Student growth and development are also considered.The fact that the center operation develops close student-facultyassociation tends to make evaluation of the educational objectives acontinuous process throughout the project, rather than a phase that isinitiated after the final report is submitted.
5 9
49
More and more of the educational objectives of the program arebeing achieved as experience is gained. All four parties thatmutually support the program agree that it is meeting the educationalobjectives. Some preliminary evaluation of student and agency experi-ences has been obtained through the use of questionnaire instruments.
50
6 0
VI. FINANCING AN OFF-CAMPUS EDUCATIONAL CENTER
Program Cost
The unit cosc of a project conducted at an off-campus projectcenter is obviously higher than that incurred by an on-campus project.The reason for this is that normal operating costs are not decreasedwhen a small number of students leave the campus. That is, if onlyfive percent of the student body are at the center, it is not feasibleto reduce on-campus staff such as security, housing, library services,computer services, or student activities. All of the costs associatedwith the provision of these on-campus functions remain essentially con-stant, even in steady state, unless a significant proportion of thestudent body is located off-campus.
This being the case, the incremental cost of the program can bepredicted by summing the out-of-pocket costs which are not normallyincurred on campus. The net cost of the program can then be determinedby subtracting all center-related income sources. Suffice it to say,a substantial amount of income in addition to tuition must be obtainedto operate a program similar to WPI's.
It is anticipated that once the program has advanced out of theproof-of-concept phase, these additional funds will be primarily off-set by two income sources: one, funds from the organizations cooperat-ing in the program and two, some amount of institutional support abovetuition. Cooperating organizations are willing to fund the program ifthe liaison perceives that his objectives have been met in previousproject efforts. It is rare that a liaison has the willingness toallocate funds to the program prior to the execution of at least oneproject.
Internal support can be justified on several grounds: the en-hancement of the undergraduate learning experience, the increasedvisibility of the institution, and the potential for faculty contactwith research funders.
As a guide to the development of a financial plan for the estab-lishment of an off-campus educational center, the following sectionspresent the types of costs typically incurred.
'Hnctional Budget Sheet
As line-item cosrs vary from institution to institution, it isbest to discuss financial expenditures in a way that would be appli-cable to any educational institution initiating and operating anoff-campus center. Tables 1 and 2 presert representative functionalbudget sheets for the start-up year, and for a fourteen-week periodin steady-state operation.
51
TABLE 1. Functional Budget Expenditure Sheet for First Year'sOperation of an Off-Campus Center.
LINE ITEM EXPENSE PERCENT OF TOTAL
1. Salaries Faculty, Director, Administrator 432. Wages - Casual, Undergraduate Students
1
3. Wages - Casual, Secretarial/Clerical 3
(Sub-total, Salary and Wages) (52)4. Supplies and Expenses 25. Equipment New and Replacement
1
6. Postage7. Telephone 28. Meetings and Conferences
29. Travel 10
10. Freight and Storage 211. Real Estate Expense 29
(Sub-total, Other) (48)
TOTAL
12. Overhead at institution's rate on direct costs
First Year Operation
A brief explanation of each line-item expense in Table 1 isgiven below.
1. Salaries Faculty, Director, Administrator. During the firstyear's operation, the program director (a member of the faculty) is on-site through the entire course of the center's operation. Preparationfor the center opening requires support during the summer months pre-ceeding student arrival. Because the director is jointly responsiblefor the administration of the program with the Projects Administrator,and for academic co-teaching with a second faculty member, it is approp-riate to provide him with some additional increment of renumerationabove his normal academic salary. The faculty members participating inthe program as co-teachers with the director are reimbursed from the bud-gets of their respective, on-campus departments. The proportion of timedevoted to the center's operation is then paid for as a transfer fromthe center budget to the department as release time. This method allowsthe department to maintain its own program through rescheduling and/orthe addition of a part-time faculty member as a temporary replace. nt.
As a guide, the total expenditure under this line item would be thesalary expense of approximately two-and-one-third, full-time-equivalent-faculty, and twenty percent of the on-campus Project Administrator's salary.
'
52
TABLE 2. Functional Budget Expenditures Sheet for Second Year'sOperation of an Off-Campus Center (one semester).
LINE ITEM EXPENSE PERCENT OF TOTAL
1. Salaries - Faculty, Director, Administrator 532. Wages - Casual, Undergraduate Students 1
3. Wages - Casual, Secretarial/Clerical 4
(Sub-total, Salary and Wages (58)
4. Supplies and Expenses 1
5. Equipment - New and Replacement 1
6. Postage 1
7. Telephone 1
8. Meetings and Conferences 5
9. Travel 11
10. Freight and Storage 0
11. Real Estate Expense 22
(Sub-total, Other (42)
TOTAL 100%
12. Overhead at institution's rate on direct costs
2. Wages - Casual, Undergraduate Students. Although a negli-gible expense is incurred, it is useful to include in the budget somefunds for employing the students at the center for clerical tasks be-tween or after academic terms. The transport of audio-visual equip-ment and films, supplies, and the like, are some of the tasks that canbe economically performed, and can provide students with a means of de-fraying some of the added costs of participation in the program.
3. Wages - Casual, Secretarial/Clerical. Secretarial support tothe director of the program can be provided by either of two mechanisms.On-campus support by a secretarial pool can be provided through correspond-ence on work task of major duration when the time lost by communicatinglong distances is not significant when compared to the duration of thetotal effort. On-site support can be provided on a part-time basis forthe day-to-day preparation of correspondence, lecture handouts, evaluationsand filing.
The approximate equivalent of a part-time secretary over a twelve-month period working 20 hours per week should be anticipated.
4. Supplies and Expenses. The majority of supply expendituresare for the acquisition of publications that are required by the facultyand students to successfully work in areas with which their previous ex-perience is relatively brief. Another major expense is the preparationand reproduction of informational packets for all the program participants.
53
5. Equipment - New and Replacement. Other than minor items suchas a tape recorder or hand calculator, equipment expenditures can bekept to a minimum. However, if audio-visual, reproduction or otheritems are considered desirable, the costs of transportation and main-tenance at a site far removed from the campus, should be evaluated,and added to the budget.
6 and 7. Postage and Telephone. Items which are normally trivialin an on-campus budget, such as postage and telephone costs, obviouslyincrease when functions are performed off-campus.
8. Meetings and Conferences. Honoraria for guest speakers andexpenses for meetings with alumni or with organizational and governmentrepresentatives should be budgeted if the program is to allow studentsand faculty to appreciate the climate in which project problems anbeing addressed by others. Sparse funding for providing such opportunitieswould negate one of the major benefits of off-campus project work. Onthe average, about two such events each month seem reasonable. Morewould accomplish little, and less does not provide sufficient informationin a seven-week period to be useful.
9. Travel. Travel costs are a major budget item, comprised ofthe following:
a. faculty to and from campus,b. director travel to and from campusc. local travel to individual project sites.d. administrative travel for program development, ande. faculty cost-of-living allowance.
Costs for the first four items in the list are site and program de-pendent. The cost-of-living allowance is provided to each faculty mem-ber to offset the additional costs associated with relocation that areabove and beyond those costs normally incurred by the faculty member.
10. Freight and Storage. The assignment of an on-site director fora full year carries with it the cost of relocating his belongings, orplacing them in storage or maintaining them at their original locationand renting new ones. The relative cost of each alternative is aboutthe same.
11. Real Estate Expense. Housing for the director, the faculty ad-visor and the students is obviously a major cost item. Apartment rentsfor the students average about $220 per student per seven-week term.Rental costs for the faculty and their families average about $425 permonth for each faculty member. The per-student cost is based on theanticipation that the program fills the units rented.
12. Overhead. Overhead costs are incurred in the form of on-campusservice provided in support of the program. These costs are averagedover all of the institution's functions, and an off-campus center hasthese services provided tc iLs participants whether or not they can be
54
fully utilized. As a result, the average overhead rate incurred by theinstitution must also be aPplied to off-campus functions.
Second Year Operation
During the second academic year, the Washington, D. C. ProjectCenter is scheduled for two, seven-week terms as opposed to the firstyear's schedule of all four terms. The remaining two terms' effortare expended on the development of the third year's operation, andthese efforts must be accounted for in the second year's budget.
The major differences between the two years is that the directoris located on-campus, and two faculty co-advisors are on-site. Thecost of relocating the director is eliminated. Orientation of students(3), a start-up cost in the first year, was eliminated as the sense ofawareness increased and the uncertainty of the students diminished.The cost of recruiting cooperating organizations is also considerablyreduced as the program gains experience.
(3) During the first year's operation students were transported toWashington for an orientation visit as part of the preparation course.
55
APPENDIX A
COMPLETED PROJECT SUMMARIES
G
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: A74 TYPE: IQP
Title:
TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS
Cooperating Organization:
U. S. Department of Commerce
Abstract:
This project, prepared in association with the U.S. Departmentof Commerce, Washington D.C., explored the hypothesis that the stateof technology and its utilization within an industry may be quanti-fied and expressed as a comprehensive scalar through the use of atechnology indicator for that industry. The components of such anindicator, given the name descriptors, are selected from amongst thosedata normally collected by the Federal Government on specific indus-tries. Implementation of the developed methodology in the aircraft,construction machinery, and textile machinery industries indicatethat existing government data bases are in large part either notdirectly applicable, or provide relatively poor proxies for measuresof technology.
Library Reference No. JSD-DOC1 No. of Pages: 92
Student Major Year
Raymond D. Cibulskis ME 75
John M. Gerstenlauer CE 76
Martin J. Kristy PH 75
James J. O'Neil CS 75
Faculty Advisor: J. S. Demetry
Faculty Coadvisor: F. C. Lutz
6 71
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED:A74 TYPE: t_u_
Title:
SPACEVISION: A NEW CONCEPT IN EDUCATION
Cooperating Organization:
U. S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
Abstract:
This project, prepared in association with the NationalInstitute of Education, Washington D.C., focuses on the preparationof chronological narrative and an analysis of the decision sequencessurrounding the implementation of the Educational Technology Demon-stration (ETD) in the Rocky Mountain Region. In this demonstration,a connunications satellite in geosynchronous orbit beamed educationalvideo programming to six Rocky Mountain states. The projectresearches the roles of such participant agencies as the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, The Department of Health,Education and Welfare, and the Federation of Rocky Mountain States.
Library Reference No. JSD-HEWl No. of Pages: 41
Student Major Year
David A. Eves CE 76
Glenn Guglietta LS 76
Faculty Advisor: J. S. Demetry
Faculty Coadvisor: F. C. Lutz
2
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: A74 TYPE: IQP-MQP
Title:
PROGRAM PLANNING FOR EVALUATION
Cooperating Organization:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
A' tract:
In this project, preparec in association with the Departmentof Housing and Urban Development in Washington, -. C. the studentsdevised a program planning system that incorporates evaluation feed-back loops to allow for constant program monitoring and readjustmentof objectives or implementation methods. The practical compositionof the loops is discussed and the system is applied to four programsof HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research. The systemprovides coherence to an otherwise scattered series of program eval-uations. It is hoped that the system will allow for more expeditiousprogram evaluation and for improvement of program effects.
Library Reference No. JSD-HUD1 No. of Pages: 199
Student Major Year
Noreen Pirog (IQP) CE 76
John Aubin (MW CE 76
Steven Borys I, L CE 76
David Williams (IQP) CE 76
Faculty Advisor: J.S. Demetry
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
3
6 9
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: A74 TYPE: IQP
Title:
FEASIBILITY OF CONVERSION TO DIRECT COAL COMBUSTION
Cooperating Organization:
National Association of Manufacturers
Abstract:
This project, prepared in association with the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers, in Washington, D.C., explores thefeasibility of conversion to direct combustion of coal in largeindustrial and utility installations currently using oil and naturalgas. Factcws considered include energy demand projections, envir-onmental constraints, security of supply and costs of conversion.A number of policy, legislative, and research recommendations areformulated.
Library Reference No. JSD-NAM1 No. of Pages: 40
Student Major Year
Vlassios C. Danos CE 76
B1-ian P. Bamoski CM 76
Faculty Advisor: J.S. D ; .:. ,
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
4
7
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: A 74 TYPE: IQP
Title:
MUNICIPAL APPLICATIONS OF CABLE TELEVISION
Cooperating Organization:
Public Technology, Incorporated
Abstract:
This project, prepared in association with Public Technology,Inc., Washington, D.C., explores the applications of cable TV fromthe viewpoint of a municipality and its officals. Particular empha-sis is placed on the public safety, security, and utility metermonitoring potential of cable systems. Feasibility, cost, ownership,and public acceptance are among the factors addressed by the study.
Library Reference No. JSD-PTI1 No. of Pages: 76
Student Major Year
James H. Hohorst CE 76
Thomas A. Colp CH 75
Faculty Advisor: J.S. npmetrv
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
5
7
PROJECT REPCRT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: A74 TYPE: IQP
Title:
DISINFECTION: IS CHLORINE STILL THE ANSWER?
Cooperating Organization:
Public Technology, Incorpotac6
Abstrac-.
This project, prepared in association with Public Technology,Inc., Washington, D.C., addresses emerging problems connectedwith the use of chlorine in water and wastewater disinfection. Ozonedisinfection, currently thought to be the most feasible alternativeto chlorine usage, is explored in the context of these emergingdrawbacks of chlorine usage. Conclusions are drawn with respect tothe desirability and effectiveness of the two methods for particularapplications. The apparent barriers to acceptance of ozonation inthe U.S. are explored and discussed.
Library Reference No. JSD-PTI1 No. of Pages: 43
Student Major Year
William J. Mullen CE 76
Faculty Advisor: J.S. Demetry
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
6
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: B74 TYPE: IQP
Title:
TECHNOLOGY INDIC,JORS
Cooperating Organization:
U.S. Department of Commerce
Abstract:
This report, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Departmentof Commerce, analyses the effects of production technology in anindustry. A method is developed and tested whereby various inputtechnology descriptors; such as, production workers/total workforce, are combined into a numerical indicator of the level of tech-nology. A computer program is included.
Library Reference No. CWS-DOC2 No. of Pages: 154
Student Major Year
Virginia A. Giordano MA 75
W. Duncan MacIntosh III ME 76
Charles F. Moulter ME 76
Faculty Advisor: C. W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: F. C. Lutz
7
7 3
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTEFI POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM LOMPLETED: 674 TYPE: IQP
Title:
A METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO ANALYZE LEGISLATIONAFFECTING ENERGY SITING
Cooperating Organization:
National Association of Manufacturers
Abstract:
This report, prepared in association with the National Associ-ation of Manufacturers, deals with the factors involved in sitingrefineries and electric power plants. Areas studied are engineeringconstraints, environmental problems, economic considerations, legalframework and social cultural effects. A suggested procedure forlegislative analysis of related bills is presented.
Library Reference No. CWS-NAM2 No. of Pages: 134
Student Majlr_ Year
Robert W. Birnber. RU 75_._ ... . _
George J. HefferonCH 76
Robert W. Sengstaken Jr. EE 75
Barry F. TarrCS 76
Faculty Advisor: C.W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
8
7 4
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: 674 TYPE: IQP
Title:
A PROCEDURE FOR TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
Cooperating Organization:
National Science Foundation
Abstract:
A study of Technology Utilization, prepared in association withthe NSF Office of Intergovenmental Science and Research Utilization,in the Solid Waste Management field, establishes the significance ofuniversity as a technology delivery mechanism. A model of the de-livery of a National Science Foundation Research report to theWorcester County area through WPI is developed and evaluated.
Library Reference No. CWS-RAN2 No. of Pages: 154
Student Major Year
John P. Casey CE 76
Anne L. Madara MA 76
David A Reid CE 76
Faculty Advisor: C.W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
9
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: B74 TYPE: IQP
Title:
ENERGY CONSERVATION LEGISLATION EVALUATION FOR NEW ENGLAND
Cooperating Organization:
New England Congressional Caucus
Abstract:
This report, prepared in association with the New EnglandCongressional Caucus, studies industrial energy conservation legis-lations, presents an evaluation process with respect to impact onvarious sectors of New England, and suggests energy related legisla-tive options for New England Congressmen's consideration.
Library Reference No. VWS-NECC No. of Pages: 59
Student Major Year
Edward T. Griffin EE 75
Oliver J. Smith EE 75
Faculty Advisor: C.W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
10
7 6
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: B74TYPE: IQP
Title:
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SURVEY
Cooperating Organization:
Public Technology, Incorporated
Abstract:
This report, prepared in association with Public Tec,inology,Incorporated, studies the most important parameters to monitor inthe influent, process control, and effluent stages of wastewatertreatment, surveys current instrumentation or methodology utilized,and notes problem areas of priority parameters measurement.
Library Reference No. CWS-PTI3 No. of Pages: 52
Student Major Year
Barry M. Siff EC 76
Faculty Advisor: C.W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
11
7 7
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: B74 TYPE: IQP
Title:'
REMOTE SENSING AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS'CAPABILITIES AND NEEDS
Cooperating Organization:
Public Technology, Incorporated
Abstract:
This report, prepared in association with Public TechnologyIncorporated, analyses the (apabilities of satellite remote sensingtechnology and the needs of iocal governments for these capabilities.
Library Reference No. CWS-PTI1 No. of Pages: 40
Student Major Year
Richard A. Weaver CE 75
Faculty Advisor: C. W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: F. C. Lutz
12
7
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: B74 TYPE: IQP
Title:
MARKETING THE NEEDS OF AN IMPROVED FLOWMETER
Cooperating Organization:
Public Technology, Incorporated
Abstract:
This report, prepared in association with Public Technology,Incorporated, is a marketing survey which relates demand to areaand city size, and presents flowmeter problems and suggestions fordesirable characteristics and marketing options.
Library Reference No. CWS-PTII No. of Pages: 28
Student Major Year
Alexander Bowers ME 76
Faculty Advisor: C.W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
13
79
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: 374 TYPE: IQP
Title:
INTERMODAL FREIGHT TERMINALS: LABOR AND MANAGEMENTBARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION
Cooperating Organization:
Department of Transportation
Abstract:
This report, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Departmentof Transportation, studies the four basic methods of freight de-livery (rail, motor carriers, air, shipping) and how various methodsmay be integrated in an intermodal freight terminal. That portionof implementation with respect to management and labor barriers isdescribed in detail.
Library Reference No. cWS-DOT2 No. of Pages: 177
Student Major Year
Stephen R. Divoll MG 76
Christopher M. Ford EE 76
John C. Forster CE 76
Paul F. Wheeler CE 76
Faculty Advisor: C.W. Staples
Faculty Coadvisor: P.C. Lutz
14
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: C75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
IMPACT OF ENERGY CONSERVATION ON INDUSTRY
Cooperating Organization:
U.S. Department of Commerce
Abstract:
This report, completed at the U.S. Department of Commerce,analyses a policy option for minimizing the present energy tradedeficiency by implementing export tariffs on the basis of energy in-tensity, rather than economic and political criteria. The analysisis achieved by the development of repeatable methodologies thatcategorize exports by ratios of the dollar value of energy consumedto the market value of the product. Economic and political impli-cations of the policy are addressed in detail.
Library Reference No. AHH-DOC2 No. of Pages: 244
Student Major Year
Perry S. Griffin MG 76
Mark A. Israel ME 76
Faculty Advisor: A.H. Hoffman
Faculty Coadvisor: F. . Lutz
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: C75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICE OF PRODUCT DEFECT IDENTIFICATION OF THECONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Cooperating Organization:
Consumer Product Safetry Commission
Abstract:
This report analyses the operation of the Office of ProductDefect Identification (OPDI) within the Consumer Product SafetyCommission (CPSC) in Washington, D.C. The analysis utilizes interviews and quantitative data from the past files of OPDI cases. Conelusions and recommendations are presented which could improve thepresent operation of the OPDI and strengthen the CPSC in its producesafety mission.
Library Reference No. AHH-CPSC No. of Pages: 191
Student Major Year
Thomas W. Stowe ME 76
John J. Moreney EE 76
Richard A. Escolas ME 76
Faculty Advisor: A.H. Hoffman
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
16
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: C75 TYPE: MQP
Title:
WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENT
Cooperating Organization:
Council on Environmental Quality
Abstract:
This project, prepared at the Council on Environmental Qualityin the Executive Office of the Pc-sident, develop: a methodology forcritically evaluating water-qu,,J;ty interpretive techniques. Twoapplications of methodology 3:e presented, and a comparative analy-sis of techniques is also s:Aoan. The study identifiies alternativedisplay techniques for various user groups, recognizing the limit-tations associated with each.
Library Reference No. FCL-CEQ1 No. of Pages:_249
Student Major Year
Paul Carubia Env.Sci. 75
William Boothe CE 75
Faculty Advisor: F.C. Lutz
Faculty Coadvisor A.H. Hoffman
17
3
1
PROJECT REPORT SUMMWASHINGTON
D. C. PROJECT CENTERARY SHEET
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM CUMPLETED: C75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
ENERGY AND rOASTin_ ZONE: A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR SITINGOIL R -S AND OTHER ENERGY RELATED FACILITIES
Cooperating Organization:
Council on Environmental Quality
Abstract:
This report (prepared at the Council on Environmental Quality inthe Executive Office of the President) develops a methodologicalframework for siting-energy related facilities in the coastal zoneusing oil refineries as an example. An identification of the charac-teristics and needs of an oil refinery, a study of the effects exper-ienced from oil developments in Louisiana, and study of oil refinerysiting controversies in New England, and the consideration of land-use controversies in the coastal zone serves as the basis for thismethodology.
Library Reference No. AHH-CEQ2 No. of Pages: 233
Student
Robert D. Jamieson, Jr.
Morris L. Weisman
Mario R. Wunderlich
Faculty Advisor: A.H. Hoffman
Faculty Coadvisor:
Major Year
CH 75
PH 75
MG 76
F.C. Lutz
18
8 1
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: C75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
THE MAYOR'S COMMAND CENTER ITS ROLE NOW AND DURING THE BICENTNEEIAL
Cooperating Organization:
D. C. Office of Civil Defense
Abstract:
This project analyzes the present capabilities of the Mayor'sCommand Center/District of Columbia Office of Civil Defense. It
determines how the Mayor's Command Center (MCC) can utlize thesecapabilities during the 1976 Bicentennial Celebration in Washington,D. C. A proposal for a Bicentennial Information Center is also pre-sented, and the invo- .ement of the MCC in this Center is analyzed.
Librdry Reference Nu. AHH-BCCD No. of Pages: 211
Student Major Year
John W. Diaehenko LS 76
Robert A. Hart EE 75
Faculty Advisor: A. H. Hoffman
Faculty Coadvisor: F. C. Lutz
19
PROJECT REPORT SUMNARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: C75 TYPE: IQP
Title:ORE QUALITY/PRICE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE ALUMINUM AND IRON INDUSTRIES
Cooperating Organization:
National Association of Manufacturers
Abstract:
This report, prepared at the National Association of Manufac-turers Offices in Washington D.C., relates the quality of ore tothe cst of the product in the aluminum and iron industries. Itdocuments the energy usage in the mining and processing of aluminumand irGn ores. The economic feasibility of alternate productionprocesses are discussed, particularly with reference tndomestic rather than imported ores.
Library Reference No. AHH-NAM3
Student
Wayne C. Elliot
Carey Lazerow
No, oF Pages: 219
Major Year
CS 75
Faculty Advisor:
Faculty Coidvisor:
A. H. Hoffman
F. C. Lutz
20
6
--
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEC.TWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENfERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: 1)75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
THE PM OF UNLEADED GASOLINE PRODUCTION)N 7HE PETRHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Cooperating 1.).7ization:
U.S. Departmec! of Commerce
Abstract:
In this report, an evaluation of the impacts of unleadedversus leaded gasoline production on the domestic petrochemicalindustry is made for the U.S. Department of Commerce in Washington,D.C. Scenarios for projected Nartha-400 degree supplies anddemand 'Ave been based on high-ve-sus low-fuel economy. Theseolef,' applies and demands are the bases for an evaluation ofimnc, .. Impacts on employment, on the U.S. balance of trade in-. hemicals, and on the GNP are predicted to the year 1985.
Library Reference No. SDW No. of Pages: 175
Student Mc,j'.,r Year._..- .
Charles Lauzon CM 76
Edward J. Fasulo Jr. CM 76
Faculty Advisor: S.D. Weinrich
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
21
PROJFCT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHP;6.7ON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCEST POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: D75 TYPE: 1QP
Title:
THE RESPONSE CAPACITY OF THE MAYOR'S COMMAND CENTERDURING THE BICENTENNIAL
Cooperating Organization:
D. C. Office of Civil Defense
Abstract:
The Mayor's Command Center, the communication network of theDistrict of Columbia/Office of Civil Defense (DC/OCD), constantlymonitor.s all emergency situations that occur in the District. Thisreport is an analysis of the response cP.pacity of the DC/OCD duringthe Bicentennial Celebration based on a five-year summary of previousemergency situations. The analysis is necessary due primarily to thelarge increase of people coming to D.C. in 1976, and the resultantexpansion of MCC responsibilities.
Library Reference No. SDW-OCD4 No. of Pages. 154
Student Majo.-
Sidney M. Formal CF 0
Thomas P. May EE 10
Faculty Advisor: S.D. Weinrich
Faculty Coadvisor: F. Lutz
22
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: D75 TYi2E: IQP
Title:
SPACE HEATER SAVETY
Cooperating Organization:
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Abstract:
This project is prepared in association with Consumer ProductSafety Commission, an organization which concerns itself with pro-ducts which present an unreasonable risk of injury to the consumer.The project concerns gas space heaters and the hazards they presentto the public. Injury data is analyzed --d accident preventiontechniques are investigated.
Library Reference Nc. SDW-CPSC No. of Pages: 151
Jdent Major Year
Michael Menesale ME 76
Joseph Martowski EF. 7,6
Faculty Advisor: S.D. Weinrich
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
23
{5 9
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUlE
TERM COMPLETED: D75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
AN HI()TORICAL ANALYSIS OF U. S. ENERGY POLICIES
Cooperating Ornizaticn:
Institute of Electrical And Electronic Engineers
Abstract:
This report, prepared in conjunction with the Washington, D.C.Office of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, isentitled An Historical Analysis of U.S. Energy Policies. The energycrisis of the 1970's, characterized by a spiraling cost of energy,in part, resulted from past energy policy decisions. The report useshistory as a guide to analyze specific energy issues and examinesimpacts of policy decisions. From this analysis, viable courses ofaction are Projected for the Nation's energy future.
Library Reference No. SDW-IEEE4 No. of Pages: 286
Student
Mangiagli, Jr.
Brian Young
Charles Nieburg
J,:hn Manning
Faculty AdOspr:
Far,l+" a)dvisor:
S.D. Weinrich
Major Yar
ME 76
CM 76
LS 76
EE 76
F.C. Lutz
24
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: 075 TYPE: IQP
Title:
THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTSON THE PRIMARY COPPER INDUSTRY
Cooperating Orgah.zation:
National Association of Manufacturers
Abstract:
This study, complete-1 at the Washington D.C. offices of theNational Association of Manufacturers, analyses the impact of recently enacted environmental regulations upon the domestic primarycopper industry, from mining through refining. Costs associatedwith compliance for air, water, and solid waste pcllution regula-tions are calculated. The social, political, economic and marketimpacts of these additional costs are assessed. This report may beused by NAM in Congressional oversight ,arings and will providethe members of NAM with general information concerning the conse-quences of implementing pollution controls.
Library Reference No. SDW-NAM4 No. of Pages: 173
Student Major Year
Thomas 3. McAloon CF
Raymond J. Robeym CM 76
Paul Grogan CF 76
Faculty Advisor: S.D. Weinrich
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
25
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CP:TERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: D75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND UTILIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODELS
Cooperating Organization:
National Science Foundation
Abstract:
This project was done in asnciation with the NSF's office ofIntergovernmental Science and Reearch Utilization. A researchstudy sponsored by NSF is tested for possible application of re-sult. and a general plan for the transfer of technology el,,. JdiedwitHn the study is prepared. The project concerns a land usemanagement and environmental ping s'.dy, first performed atHarvard University. The feasibillty .-.tid techniques for utili:ingthis research are evaluated and compared to other la i-use pl,:nningmethods.
Library Reference No. SDW-NSF4 No. of Pages: 125
StudPnt Major Year
Daniel Garfi CS :6
Thomas E. Vaughn MG 76...
,
Faculty Advisor: S.D. Weinrich
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
26
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: D75 TYPE: IQP
Title:
INVESTIGATION OF THE JSE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGLMENTAT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
Cooperating Organization:
Public Technology, Incorported
Abstract:
This report, prepared io the Office of Public Technology, Inc.,surveys selected state and local officials to determine the extentof the use of construction management techniques at the state, locallevels of government. The construction management techniques, theresults of the survey, and factors determining the use of constructionmanagement at state and local levels of government are discussed ,ndevaluated.
Library Reference No. SDW-PTI4 No. of "ages: 80
Student Major Year
H. Warren Fairbanks III CE 76
Kevin H-..tings r7 76_
Faculty Advisor: S.D. Weinrich
Faculty Coadvisor: F.C. Lutz
27
,93
PROJECT REPORT SUMMARY SHEETWASHINGTON D. C. PROJECT CENTERWORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
TERM COMPLETED: 075 TYPE:JT
litle:
A [IAN FCR THE ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES REGARDING ROAD..._ PRICING POLICIES
Cooperating Organization:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration
Abstract:
This l',dort was prepared for the Office of Research of theFederal Highway Administration. It presents a plan for the assess-ment of attitudes (public, employer and government officials) regardiny road pricing policies. Road pricing is one mechanism for dealinwith peak period congestion in an urban road system. This reportdescribes how one of three needed surveys was developed and how itsresults will be analyzed. Suggestions for an appropriate adminis-trative rocedure have been included.
Library Referene No. SN-4-14 No. of Pages: 140.
Student Major Year
John Griffiths IIICE 76
Faculty Advisor.
Faculty Coadvisor:
S.D. Weinrir-L
F.C. Lutz
28
APPENDIX B
FINAL REPORT GUIDELINES
/ ;.)
LeLter_of Transmittal:(Business letter format, written to the agency liai:,on)Must contain:
Submittal statement, report titleCopies of the report are simultaneously being submittedto the faculty advisors for evaluationUpon faculty review, the original will be catdlogued inthe Gordon Library of Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Should contain:Complementary statement
Title. Sheet
(Refer to Exhibi t B-1)
Abstract:nst be 80 words r less, single-spaced, contain name o
grganization
e.g., This rei)oiL, prepw:ed in the offices of the
, . . .
One of t e last sections to be done.
Table of ContentsDo this last. This will he developod from the final reportoutline whLh w originolly prepared Juring th( second weekof the projr
I. IntroductionMust contain:
"This report was prepared by members of !iarcester
Polytechnic Institute's Washington D. C. Pr ject Center.The relationship of the Center to the (nd 2 oforganization) and the relevance of the topic to the
(name of organization) are presented in AppendixA."
A section on the significance of the subject matterProject scope
(In general terms, tell the reader what he is aboutto read)
Note: Most topics require that the reader be given some back-ground to understand the project scope. If so, insert a section onGeneral Background.
II. Executive Summary (one of the last to be written)This section of the report must stand by itself, and present a
L;lorough synopsis of the major findings. (In some cases, an openingstatement would allow an exception: "This chapter, when combinedwith Chapter I, provides an inclusive executive summary of the subjectmatter treated in this report").
TITH
!naes and :Has
Aca-nc./ pi.V1SIONI
R7POPT 777 F IL ALL CAP'TAI LELTERS
S
DA-E
This project report i s submitted i n D a r t : a l Yalfi 1 henS al thadegree requirements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Theand opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the positions or oHnions of (the Agency riF.me;or Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
This report is the product of-- an eancatin pri-jgram,intended to serve .s partial documentation for the ofacademic achievement. The report shouli hoz Lan sos as awor*ing document by the reader.
Exhibit D-1. 7:nal P-_);-t T:ti?
Letter of Transmittal:(Bus:ness letter format, writlerMust contain:
Submittal statement, report titleCopies of the report are simultaneouslyto the faculty advisors for evaluationUpon faculty review, the original will LE eataloguthe Gordon Library of 1.,:crcester Polytechni: ins
Shoel d contain:Comolementar,y sSdtem,ent
laiseH
Lie urset(Refer LXflibl
a.ct:
HE: 80 words less sin.alt mc,
r2port, :truoorad H :He o fices it
OT tne I,s:
ae, this last. This will ge developed :'-rom f-in,,1 repo-
outline which was original] prepared dw-inn t scond weeof the project.
troductionv,ust contain:
'This report Wet prepared L-Jy members of ,;IdrcesterPolytechnic institute's 1,,:ashington D. C. Project Cere.er.
The relationship of the Center to the (name of
organization) and the relevance of the topic to the(name of organizationi are presented in Appendi::
A section on the significance of the subject matterProject scope
(In general terms, tell the rder wbt hp is aboutto read)
:ote: Most topics require readPr Pe given some back-ground to understand the Project scope. If so, insert a section on
General Background.
Executive Summary (one of the last to be ywitten)Tnis section of the report must stand by itself, and present a
thorough synopsis of the major findings. (In some cases, an opening
statement would allow an exception: "This chapter, when combinedwitn Chapter I, provides an inclusive executive summary of the subjectmatter treated in this report").
nile the format for Chapter II will vary with each repor , the
following suggestions as to content may prove helpful:IntroductionBackgroundPresent SituationProjectionsConstraintsAlternativesComparison of AlternativesResults (or Recommendations of Conclusions)
E:ecutive Summaries are written for people who are responsible7'or being familiar with many reports just like yours, everyday; ofnecessity, 'L.erefore it must he right to the point.
T T Literature Review (or Background Information)Usually, a project topic will deal with several areas of kna,!--
ledge. Under a subheading for each of these areas, present a reviewbf the pertinent information that has already been published.
Methodologl_ (or Procedure)This is one of the most important chapters in the report.IL must present the methods of analysis employed in such a way
that the reader can repeat the procedure with different data. It isa general conceptual flowchart of the problem-solving approach. As
an example, this Chapter would show how calculations are performed,without actually using data to perform the calculations.
V. ResultsPresent the application of the first phase of the methodology
to the output of Chapter V. to develop the recommendations and con-clusions of the report. That is, now that you have the results, whatis significant about them? ;fllat do they mean?
Analysis of ResultsPresent the application of the second phase of the methodology
to the output of Chapter V, to develop the recommendations and con-clusions of the report. That is, now that you have the results, whatis significant about them? '1hat do they mean?
ConclusionsThe final decisions, thoughts rind p _sise results that have
developed as a result of the project.
PpcomfiendationAs a result of the project there may be suggested actions,
Riementation or additional studies that are necessary.Foth VII and VIII should present terse, concise stateents.
Appendix A. Organizational InformationThis Appendix should include a general background statement on
the history and development of the organization, recent budgetarytrends, how and by whom its policy is set, and specific statements ofits current policies, goals, and objectives.
The original lette; from the organization, identifying the topic,should be shown as an Exhibit.
The final section should describe how your project topic is re-lated to the organization's mission, the positions and responsibili-ties of the people working with you in the organization (show anorganization chart), and how the project topic's results would affectcomponents of the orc_;anization. (Note: These components are probablyvery good data sources)